Ms. Smriti Dewangan vs Plutus Infraventures Private Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Smriti Dewangan ...Appellants Versus Plutus Infraventures Pvt. Ltd., ...Respondents Through Liquidator Dr. Bankim Shukla & Ors.

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Prashant Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Ms. Aakansha Mehra and Ms. Arushi Vig, Advocates for R1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

11.07.2025: Heard counsel for the appellant as well as Ld. Counsel for

the Respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 16.05.2025 passed

by the National Company Law Tribunal Cuttack Bench, in IA (IB) No.

323/CB/2023 in CP(IB) No. 176/CTB/2019. An application under Section

60(5), Section 66 read with Section 14 and Section 17 of the IBC was filed by

the Liquidator against the appellant who was arrayed as respondent no.4 in

the application seeking a direction, the prayers in the application has been

extracted in para-1 of the judgment which is as follows:-

"1. The present Application. bearing IA (IB) No. 323/CB/2023 has been filed by Dr. Bakim Shukla i.e. the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor, M/s Plutus Infraventures Private Limited under Section 60(5) and Section 66 read with Section 14 and 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC'/'Code') read with Rule 11 of National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 seeking the following set of directions against the Respondents:

a. Direct the Respondents to contribute to the Corporate Debtor the sum of Rs. 30,47,238/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Eight Only) along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum or at such other rate as this Hon'ble Tribunal as it may deem fit, from 19.03.2022 till the date of complete payment to the Corporate Debtor; and

b. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit."

3. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties issued directions to

the appellant to contribute the said amount of Rs. 30,47,238/- aggrieved by

which order this appeal has been filed.

4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that application was filed under

Section 66(3) and the appellant is entitled to for the benefit of Section 67(2) to

be treated as creditor of the CD. It is submitted that there are no finding with

regard to Section 66 against the appellant that there was any fraudulent

transaction.

5. Counsel appearing for the liquidator submits that order passed by

Adjudicating Authority was only under Section 14 which is clear from para-10

of the order. A perusal of the order indicates that there are no findings under

Section 66 against the appellant nor the order is passed under Section 14,

the Adjudicating Authority has referred to Section 14 and has directed for

contribution on the ground that CIRP has commenced on 15.03.2025 and

2 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 969 of 2025 subsequent to commencement of the CIRP the amount was paid to the

appellant.

6. We thus hold that the impugned order is an order under Section 14 and

is not an order under Section 66 holding any fraudulent transaction. Ld.

Counsel for the appellant lastly contended he should be permitted to file a

claim before the liquidator. We are of the view that the applicant is free to file

its claim before the liquidator which can be decided in accordance with law.

With the above observations, we dismiss this appeal.

7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that within four weeks he shall

refund the amount to the liquidator.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN

3 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 969 of 2025