P.R.Venkatesh vs Sripriya Kumar , Rp
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 765 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a Resolution Professional seeks to avoid transactions on the ground of fraud, and the transferee relies on written agreements to justify payments made by the corporate debtor, the agreements are not to be accepted at face value where the payments are unsupported by invoices, indemnity of tax or TDS deduction, or any corresponding entries in the corporate debtor's books, and where the transferee's office is located at the promoter's residence and the parties share a common shareholding and directorship interest; in such circumstances the agreements may be treated as suspicious and not relied upon, and the transfers may be held fraudulent.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of order dated 01.02.2020 in MA/987/2019 in IBA/330/2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Special Bench, Chennai]
IN THE MATTER OF:
P R Venkatesh (Promoter) 13 Akila Nagar, West Kodala Pattai, Thiruvanai Kovi, Srirangam, Tiruchy-620005. ....Appellant.
Versus
1. Sripriya Kumar, Resolution Professional Perfect International Fabricators Private Limited B6/A8 Gems Court, 14, Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Sriramapuram, Thousand Lights West, Nungambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600006. 2. Ingenium Advisory LLP 13 Akila Nagar West Kodala Pattai Thiruvanai Kovil, Srirangam, Tiruchy - 620005. 3. Deepak Parasuraman Designated Partner of Ingenium Advisory LLP No. 2, LIC Colony, 2nd Cross Street 2
Dr. Radhakrishnan Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur Chennai - 600041. .... Respondents.
Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Goutham Shivshankar, Advocate.
For Respondents: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate for IRP/R-1. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, Advocate for R-1.
JUDGMENT
(21st September, 2021)
Justice Anant Bijay Singh;
This instant Appeal i.e. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 765 of
2020 was heard together with Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 349 of
2020.
2. This instant Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the
order dated 01.02.2020 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (National
Company Law Tribunal), Special Bench, Chennai in MA/987/2019 in
IBA/330/2019 whereby and where under the Ld. Adjudicating Authority
passed the following order:
" 22. For the reasons aforementioned, for R3 having not
stated that he is not the cause for release of the funds from
the Corporate Debtor to R1 and R1 having not proved that
this money has come to his partnership firm towards
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 765 of 2020 3
commission, we hereby hold the impugned transfer of the
Corporate Debtor funds to R1 is for fraudulent purpose.
Therefore we hereby direct R2 and R3 jointly and severally to
contribute Rs. 65 Lac to the Corporate Debtor within fifteen
days from hereof.
23. Accordingly, this MA/987/2019 is hereby allowed."
3. The facts giving rise to the instant Appeal is as under:
i) That the Appellant is the erstwhile promoter and Managing Director of
Perfect International Fabricators Private Limited. The Perfect is a private
limited company incorporated on 30.11.2005. The Corporate Debtor was
admitted to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process proceedings pursuant to
an application under Section 9 filed by an Operational Creditor - Ms. Jotun
India Pvt. Ltd. which was admitted by the NCLT vide order dated 29.04.2019
passed in IBA/330/2019 wherein Respondent No. 1 was appointed as the
Resolution Professional.
ii) The Respondent No. 2 (herein) - Ingenium Advisory LLP is a Limited
Liability Partnership Firm registered under the LLP Act, 2008 and is carrying
on the business of providing Business Consultancy & Global Management
Consulting and Advisory Services, Corporate Restructuring and Arrangement
of Funds for meeting working capital requirements for their corporate clients
etc.
iii) The LLP is incorporated on 12.01.2015 and the present designated
partners are Deepak and his sister in law, Mrs. Chitra Athwani. Mr. Deepak
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 765 of 2020 4
and Venkatesh share good professional relations and are also co-directors in
a company named M/s. Udveka Engineering Private Limited.
iv) It is further case is that the Respondent No. 2 (herein) - Ingenium
Advisory LLP was operating out of its registered office 44/38, Veerbadran
Street, Near Valluavar Kottam, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034. However,
the same was a rented premise. In 2016, Ingenium started operating out of a
5 Star Hotel from Chennai and currently operates from the same Hotel.
v) It is further case is that the professional relations with Deepak,
Permitted Ingenium to designate Venakatesh's residence as Ingenium's
registered address for purely compliance purposes.
vi) The Corporate Debtor - Perfect International Fabricators Private Limited
represented by P R Venkatesh - Appellant herein and Ingenium Advisory LLP
entered into contract whereby Ingenium Advisory LLP was required to arrange
long term and working capital loan on behalf of the Perfect International
Fabricators Private Limited for their business requirements. The copy of the
Agreement dated 12.10.2015 marked as Annexure A-2 at page 40 to 43 of the
Appeal Paper Book.
vii) As per the clause 3.1 and 3.2 of Contract No. 1, the Ingenium Advisory
LLP was to charge 3% of the total debt arranged as it success fee.
viii) As per clause No. 3.3, Perfect was required to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as
advance to the Ingenium Advisory LLP and the balance was to be paid after
the consummation of the transaction.
ix) Further case is that the advance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid by
Perfect to Ingenium Advisory LLP on 19.12.2016 by way of RTGS.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 765 of 2020 5
x) On 16.08.2016, Perfect and Ingenium Advisory LLP entered into another
agreement wherein Ingenium Advisory LLP was required to facilitate the
procurement of purchase order / supply contract from windmill
manufacturing companies for supply of tubular steel towers from Perfect
(Annexure A-3 at page 44 to 47 of the Appeal Paper Book).
xi) Further case is that as per Clause 3.2 of Contract No. 2 dated
16.08.2016, Ingenium Advisory LLP was entered to receive 5.5% commission
on the amount of the purchase orders and Rs. 5 lacs towards expenses. The
Ingenium Advisory LLP fulfilled Contract No. 1 dated 12.10.2015 by securing
a Rs. 3 Crore loan to Perfect International Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. from M/s. SREI
Equipment Finance Limited on 19.06.2017 and thereafter, Perfect
International Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. was liable to pay Rs. 9 Lacs in accordance
to Clauses 3.1 and 3.2 of Contract No. 1. As stated above, Rs. 5 lacs were
already paid in advance by Perfect International Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. to
Ingenium Advisory LLP and the remaining Rs. 4 lacs were paid by Perfect
International Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. to Ingenium Advisory LLP on 20.06.2017.
xii) Further case is that the pursuant to Contract No. 2 dated 16.08.2016
(Annexure A/3 at page 44 to 47 of the Appeal Paper Book), Ingenium Advisory
LLP facilitated a meeting between a potential buyer and Perfect International
Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Subsequent to the facilitation of the meeting by Ingenium
Advisory LLP, the meeting of Perfect International Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. with a
potential buyer - M/s Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd. was finalised in the 1st week
of December, 2016 and a purchase order worth Rs. 9.5 crores were finalised
in favour of Perfect International Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. on 07.112.2016 upon
which Perfect was entitled to get commission of Rs. 52.5 lacs + rs. 5 lacs
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 765 of 2020 6
(expenses) totalling to Rs. 57.25 lacs, in accordance to clause 3.2 of the
Contract No. 2.
xiii) The total amounting of Rs. 65 lacs were transferred by Perfect
International Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. to Ingenium Advisory LLP in three tranches
on 19.12.2016, 20.06.2017 and 31.03.2018 in accordance to Contract No. 1
and Contract No. 2.
xiv) The Perfect International Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. was admitted to CIRP
proceedings pursuant to an application under section 9 filed by an
Operational Creditor - M/s Jotun India Pvt. Ltd. which was admitted by the
Ld. NCLT vide order dated 29.04.2019 passed in IBA/330/2019 wherein
Respondent No. 1 was appo8inted as the Resolution Professional.
xv) The Resolution Professional filed MA/987/2019 before the Ld. NCLT
alleging that Perfect International Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. and Ingenium Advisory
LLP are related parties and the transfer of payments by Perfect International
Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. to Ingenium Advisory LLP within the look-back period (2
years before the date of admission of CIRP Proceedings) were preferential and
fraudulent, notwithstanding the fact that there exist clear agreements under
which the said amounts were indeed payable by Perfect International
Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. to Ingenium Advisory LLP. Thereafter, the Ld.
Adjudicating Authority, vide order dated 01.02.2019 allowed the
MA/987/2019 in IBA/330/2019. Hence this Appeal.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
4. The Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant during the course of
argument and memo of Appeal has also Written Submissions submitted that
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 765 of 2020 7
the Ld. Adjudicating Authority while passing the impugned order has failed to
appreciate that the total amounts of Rs. 65 lacs which was received by
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein was in multiple instalments between
December 2016 to March 2018 much prior to CIRP Proceedings, Rs. 40 lacs
were paid within 2 years prior to the commencement of the CIRP and the
remaining 25 lacs were paid outside of that period.
5. It is further submitted that these transactions were all bona fide
payments made for services rendered by Ingenium Advisory LLP for and on
behalf of the Corporate Debtor pursuant to two Agreements dated 12.10.2015
(Annexure A-2 at page 40 to 43 of the Appeal Paper Book) and 16.08.2016
(Annexure A-3 at page 44 to 47 of the Appeal Paper Book).
6. It is further submitted that the Resolution Professional in this case has
moved an application under Sections 43 and 66 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016making vague, unclear allegations about the
transactions being both "preferential" and "fraudulent". Section 43 deals with
pre3frential transactions. Section 66 deals with fraudulent transactions. The
elements of both the Sections are completely distinct.
7. It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, in paragraph
8 of the impugned order wrongly finds that there was no material to say that
the payments made were transferred as payment for consultancy services. It
further holds that there were no supporting entries in the books of account of
the Corporate Debtor to demonstrate that these payments were made for
business purpose.
8. It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has adopted
a completely inverted and erroneous approach regarding proof of fraudulent
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 765 of 2020 8
transactions under Section 66 of the IBC. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority has
placed a negative burden of proving that the transactions are not fraudulent
on the Appellant against whom the allegation of fraud is made. This is
completely contrary to well settled principles of law that fraud has to be proved
by the person alleging it by leading cogent evidence. Further, it is submitted
that the fraud must be pleaded and proved. It cannot be presumed.
9. It is further submitted that on the basis of these submissions the
impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law, therefore, the Appeal
is allowed.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent No. 1
10. The Respondent No. 1 was the Resolution Professional of Corporate
Debtor viz. Perfect International Fabricators Private Limited and is presently
the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor.
11. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 during the course of
argument and his Affidavit in compliance of the order dated 27.07.2021
submitted that the purchase order dated 16.08.2016 filed by the Appellant
was not a complete document and that there were terms and conditions
attached to such purchase order which have not been filed before the Hon'ble
Tribunal. Accordingly, this Tribunal by order dated 27.07.2021 was pleased
to permit the Respondent No. 1 to file the entire purchase order dated
16.08.2016 which is as Annexure RP-1 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)
No. 349 of 2020.
12. It is further submitted that the Respondent No. 1 -Liquidator that a sum
of Rs. 65 lacs have been paid to Ingenium Consulting LLP by the Corporate
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 765 of 2020 9
Debtor and that the said payment is not supported by any commercial
transaction and it is purely an afterthought basis which the Appellant in the
present Appeal.
13. It is further submitted that the Appellant created ante dated documents
viz Contracts dated 12.10.2015 (Annexure A-2 at page 40 to 43 of the Appeal
Paper Book) and 16.08.2016 (Annexure A-3 at page 44 to 47 of the Appeal
Paper Book) to justify the payment of Rs. 65 lacs.
14. It is further submitted that the whole transaction is fraudulent and the
Corporate Debtor has been defrauded of Rs. 65 lacs as there is no Invoice, no
GST/Service Tax nor any deduction of TDS when the said payment of Rs. 65
lacs was made by the Corporate Debtor to Respondent No. 2 herein - Ingenium
Consulting LLP.
15. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 while placing reliance of
the purchase order at relevant page 35 of the Affidavit dated 03.08.2021 and
referred clause 27 deals with Anti-Bribery & Code of Conduct which is read as
under:
"27. ANTI-BRIBERY & CODE OF CONDUCT
The Seller / Service Provider shall comply with all applicable
laws, statutes, regulations and codes relating to anti-
bribery and anti-corruption. Seller / Service Provider will not
engage in any activity or practice which constitutes an
offence under the relevant requirements including not
offering, paying, considering or benefiting, either directly or
indirectly an inducement or reward of any kind for any
services, or possible services in relation to this Purchase
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 765 of 2020 10
Order. Breach of this clause shall be deemed a material
breach of this Purchase Order. The Supplier will not
passively, nor directly or indirectly violate the basic human
rights of employees and will not engage any child labour."
16. It is further submitted that the email was also sent to the mail ID
available of the Respondent No. 2 but no response was received from the
Respondent No. 2.
17. It is further submitted that the books of accounts reflected this money
as advance to the Appellants and there was no response to the queries raised
by the Resolution Professional from the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 and
3 about the nature of such advance, the Respondent No. 1 started making
further enquiry into the matter. During further enquiry, it become clear that:
a. The Office of the Respondent No. 2 is located at the residence of the
Appellant;
b. The Appellant and the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have common interest
in a company called as Udveka Engineering Private Limited where Appellant
and his wife are directors since 22.08.2016 and 26.09.2018 respectively. The
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 hold 500 and 9500 equity shares respectively in
Udveka Engineering Pvt. Ltd. with balance 250 shares held by the Appellant.
Therefore, the Respondent No. 2 and 3 are shareholders and Appellant is
Director acting on instructions of the Respondent No. 2 and 3;
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 765 of 2020 11
c. No details were disclosed by the Respondent No. 2 and 3 or by the
Appellant despite repeated requests about the payments and transactions to
the Resolution Professional.
18. It is further submitted that based on these submissions the ld.
Adjudicating Authority has rightly passed the impugned order and there is no
merit in the Appeal, the Appeal is fit to be dismissed.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent No. 2.
19. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 - Ingenium Advisory LLP
during the course of arguments supported the arguments advanced by
Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant and submitted that these transactions
were bona fide payments made for services rendered by Respondent No. 2 for
and on behalf of the Corporate Debtor pursuant to tow Agreements dated
12.10.2015 (Annexure A-2 at page 40 to 43 of the Appeal Paper Book) and
16.08.2016 (Annexure A-3 at page 44 to 47 of the Appeal Paper Book).
20. It is further submitted that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, in paragraph
8 of the impugned order wrongly finds that there was no material to say that
the payments made were transferred as payment for consultancy services. It
further holds that there were no supporting entries in the books of account of
the Corporate Debtor to demonstrate that these payments were made for
business purpose.
21. It is further submitted that based on these submissions the impugned
order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and fit to be set aside and the
Appeal be allowed.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 765 of 2020 12
FINDINGS
22. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and going through the
pleadings as also Written Submissions, we are of the considered view that the
following facts are admitted in the instant Appeal.
The Corporate Debtor -'Perfect International Private Limited' and the
Respondent No. 2 entered into two Agreements viz. Agreement dated
12.10.2015 (Annexure A-2 at page 40 to 43 of the Appeal Paper Book)
and 16.08.2016 (Annexure A-3 at page 44 to 47 of the Appeal Paper
Book) respectively.
The Corporate Debtor made the first tranche of payment on 19.12.2016
of Rs. 25,00,000/- including the advance of Rs. 5,00,000/- as a part
payment of the initial contract of 2015 for facilitation of securing long
term working capital loan for the Corporate Debtor.
The Corporate Debtor released the second tranche of payment of Rs.
30,00,000/- to the Appellant No. 2 which included Rs. 4,00,000/- as
balance commission amount for arranging the long term working capital
loan from SREI Equipment Finance Limited and Rs. 26,00,000/- as part
of commission for getting business order from M/s Regen Powertech
Private Limited.
The Corporate Debtor released the third tranche of payment on
31.03.2018 amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- as balance commission
amount for getting business order from M/s Regen Powertech Private
Limited.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 765 of 2020 13
All together 65 Lacs have been received by the Respondent No. 2 from
the Corporate Debtor in three tranches.
The Respondent No. 1 - Resolution Professional during the course of
CIRP while reviewing the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor
came to notice across the aforesaid payments made by the Corporate
Debtor to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
The details of payments were sought from the Appellant through email
but there was no response or justification in support of such payments
made to the Respondent No. 2 and 3. The books of accounts reflected
this money as advance to the Respondent No. 2 and 3.
It is also admitted fact that the Office of the Respondent No. 2 is located
at the residence of the Appellant.
It is also admitted fact that the Appellant have common interest in a
company called as Udveka Engineering Private Limited where Appellant
and his wife are directors since 22.08.2016 and 26.09.2018
respectively.
It is also admitted fact that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 hold 9500 and
500 equity shares respectively in Udveka Engineering Pvt. Ltd. with
balance 250 shares held by the Appellant. Therefore, the Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 are shareholders and Appellant is Director acting on
instructions of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
It is also admitted fact that the Respondent No. 2 was incorporated on
12.01.2015 and the Respondent No. 3 and his wife are partners of the
Respondent No. 2 are engaged in investment advisory and business
consultancy services.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 765 of 2020 14
It is also admitted that the payment was made pursuant to two letters
of engagements dated 12.10.2015 and 16.08.2016.
It is also admitted fact that the letter of engagement dated 12.10.2015
is letter of engagement between the Respondent No. 2 and Appellant,
the Respondent and Corporate Debtor is not a party to the said
engagement.
It is also admitted fact that the no Invoice was raised by the Respondent
No. 2 on the Corporate Debtor for such payment. There is no service tax
charged for such Invoice and there is no TDS deducted by the Corporate
debtor for such payment.
Taking all these facts, the Agreements dated 12.10.2015 (Annexure A-2
at page 40 to 43 of the Appeal Paper Book) and 16.08.2016 (Annexure
A-3 at page 44 to 47 of the Appeal Paper Book) are suspicious
documents and cannot be relied upon.
ORDER
23. After hearing the parties and gone through the records, we are of the
considered view that there is no illegality committed by the Ld. Adjudicating
Authority while passing the impugned order. The impugned order dated
01.02.2020 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal), Special Bench, Chennai in MA/987/2019 in IBA/330/2019 is
hereby affirmed. There is no merit in the instant Appeal. The instant Appeal
is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 765 of 2020 15
24. Registry to upload the Judgment on the website of this Appellate
Tribunal and send the copy of this Judgment to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal), Special Bench, Chennai, forthwith.
[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)
[Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)
New Delhi 21st September, 2021 R. Nath.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 765 of 2020
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