Mr. Venkatesh Srinivasan Iyer vs Vinod Radhakrishnan Nair And Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2322 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A former director who has resigned from the board of a corporate debtor before the commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process cannot reasonably be presumed to be in possession of the corporate debtor's documents and information, so an adjudicating authority does not err in declining to direct such a person to produce them; the resignation, as evidenced by the Form DIR-12 filing with the Registrar of Companies, is a sufficient basis for that conclusion. Whether a party has furnished all relevant documents in its possession is a question of fact to be determined by the Resolution Professional in the course of correspondence with that party, and is not one the appellate tribunal will decide in an appeal against an order directing production.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Venkatesh Srinivasan Iyer ...Appellant
Versus
Vinod Radhakrishnan Nair & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Ms. Malvika Kapila Kalra, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Ms. Harbani Singh, Advocates. For Respondents : Ms. Anjali Sharma, Advocate for R-1.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
21.01.2025: I.A. No. 8740 of 2024: This is an application praying for
condonation of 14 days delay in filing the appeal. The order impugned was
passed on 16.10.2024 and this appeal has been e-filed on 29.11.2024 with
delay of 14 days. We find sufficient ground in Para 2(A) and (B) of the
application for condonation of 14 days' delay. Cause shown sufficient delay
is condoned.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 16.10.2024 passed
in the Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 1880 of 2024 filed under Section 19(2)
by the Resolution Professional. Appellant was Managing Director of the
Corporate Debtor and he is arrayed as Respondent No.1 in the application.
The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has directed the Appellant
to supply the requisite information mentioned in Para No.16 within a period
of four weeks.
Cont'd.../ 2
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the impugned order
submits that the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who were Directors of the
Corporate Debtor on behalf of the investor ought to have been directed to
produce the documents but have been exonerated in the application. Learned
counsel for the Appellant submits that the Corporate Debtor was under full
control of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the Adjudicating Authority has erred
in not issuing direction to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, however, such directions
have been issued to the Appellant.
4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
5. With regard to Respondent No.3 and 4 regarding whom grievance has
been made, in Para 29 of the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority has
made following observations:
"29. So far as Respondents No. 3 and 4 are concerned, their case is that they resigned as directors of the Corporate Debtor on 04.02.2020 and have also relied upon Form No. DIR-12 filed with the Registrar of the Companies with regard to their resignation from the Board of the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, prima facie, Respondents No. 3 and 4 who had resigned from the Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor in the year 2020, much prior to the commencement of the CIRP, cannot be supposed to be in possession of the documents and information pertaining to the Corporate Debtor as has been sought by the Applicant/RP."
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2322 of 2024 3
6. Respondents No. 3 and 4 resigned as directors of the Corporate Debtor
on 04.02.2020 which is reflected in Form No. DIR-12 filed with the Registrar
of the Companies and the CIRP commenced on 05.09.2023. We, thus, do not
find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority in not issuing
direction to Respondent No.3 and 4 and reasons given by the Adjudicating
Authority that they have resigned much prior to the commencement of the
CIRP cannot be said to be a faulty reason. We, thus, are of the view that no
error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in not issuing
direction to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant further contends that the Appellant
has submitted all relevant documents which were in possession of the
Appellant.
8. In this Appeal, we are not entering into issue as to whether the
Appellant has given all relevant documents or not. It is for the Resolution
Professional to take a call and enter into appropriate correspondence to the
Appellant.
9. Learned counsel for the Appellant lastly submits that even if
Respondent No.3 and 4 have resigned, the other directors who were on behalf
of the Clarion Group may be called to provide documents.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2322 of 2024 4
10. It is for the Resolution Professional to take a call and not for us to issue
any direction in this regard. With these observations, we dismiss the
appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2322 of 2024
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free