M/S. Shreehari Associates Pvt. Ltd vs Mr. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Shreehari Associates Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi, ...Respondents RP for Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd. & Ors.

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Anand and Mr. Ishan Roy Chowdhury, Advocates. For Respondents : None.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

21.05.2025: Heard Counsel for the Appellant.

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating

Authority dated 04.02.2025 passed in IA No. 1833 of 2019 filed by the

Resolution Professional. The CIRP with respect to the Corporate Debtor Sunil

Hi-Tech Engineering Limited commenced on 07.09.2018 and order was

delivered on 10.09.2018 on which date moratorium was also imposed. After

enforcement of moratorium certain payments were made which include the

payment to the present appellant on 10.09.2018 to 14.09.2018. Payments

obviously was made in favour of the appellant by suspended directors.

Application was filed by the Resolution Professional seeking a direction to the

respondents to the application to refund the said amount which was paid in

violation of the moratorium. The said application has been allowed and the

appellant has been directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,92,00,000/-.

2. Shri Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for the appellant challenging the

order submits that the contract which was in favour of the appellant was

continuing even on the date when moratorium was imposed and the appellant

was thus working on the continuing contract and his entitlement to receive

the amount was very much there. He submits that Resolution Professional

has chosen not to file application with respect to certain other operational

creditors who were paid subsequent to 10.09.2018 and had chosen to file

application with respect to only four vendors Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 to the

application. He submits that when application was not filed from refund of

the amount from other vendors direction for refund made by the Adjudicating

Authority in the impugned order cannot be sustained.

3. We have considered the submission of the counsel for the appellant and

perused the records.

4. The facts and the findings returned by the Adjudicating Authority

clearly indicate that payments were made to the appellant after imposition of

moratorium by the suspended directors. After moratorium is imposed no

payments can be made without approval of the Resolution Professional and

payments were made to the appellant in breach of the moratorium.

5. We do not find any error in the order directing for refund of the

amount. In so far as the submissions of the appellant that appellant's

contract was continuing and he was entitled for the payment. The appellant

with respect to the amount directed to the refunded is free resubmit his bills

2 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 551 of 2025 and claims which needs to be considered by the Resolution Professional/

Liquidator in accordance with law.

6. The submission of the appellant that since application was not filed

with regard to some other vendors who may have paid does not commend us.

No equality can be claim with regard to an illegality. It is not for us to

examine the cases of those vendors for whom no application has been filed for

refund.

7. We thus are of the view that no grounds have been made out to

interfere with the impugned order subject to observations and liberty as

above, the appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) harleen/NN

3 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 551 of 2025