Pravesh Talwar vs Maya Gupta Liquidator For Talwar ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Pravesh Talwar .....Appellant Vs. Maya Gupta Liquidator for Talwar Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ......Respondents

Present : For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Tushar Tyagi, Mr. Anant A.Pavgi with Mr. Pravesh Talwar, Advocates

07.08.2019 - Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there is a

delay of 14 days in filing the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the

Appellant and being satisfied with the ground, delay of 14 days in preferring the

appeal is hereby condoned. I.A. No. 2445 of 2019 stands disposed of.

2. During the Liquidation Proceedings, the Liquidator could not auction the

stock inspite of the fact that he conducted auction twice for the stock-in-trade of

the Corporate Debtor and no proposal had been received despite reducing the

price and hence sought permission to sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor by

way of private sale. This was noticed by the Adjudicating Authority ('National

Company Law Tribunal') New Delhi Bench, New Delhi by impugned order dated

...contd.

2

29th May, 2019 and the liquidator was permitted to sell and since major

claimants were going to be affected it was also directed to inform them.

3. Subsequently, the liquidator brought to the notice of the Adjudicating

Authority that a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs have been received on sale. At that stage,

the objection was raised by the Appellant / Ex-Director as well as by one

Promoter. They took plea that the Director could have arranged sale through

any other dealer. This was not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority while

passing the Impugned Order on 12th June, 2019.

4. It is also pointed out by the Liquidator that during the period of

Moratorium stock-in-trade worth approx. Rs. 17 lakhs had been disposed of by

the Ex-Director and items purchased during the period of Moratorium were

disposed of giving the adjustments to the dues of the buyers.

5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submission, the Adjudicating

Authority while passing the Impugned Order dated 12th June, 2019 asked the

Liquidator to provide details of transaction.

6. It was further submitted that as per the Financial Statements, scrap

worth Rs. 1 crores was reflected as lying but there was no physical verification

of this scrap or where it is lying. Reply to these allegations was sought from

the Ex-Directors within two weeks in the Impugned Order.

....contd.

3

7. The Adjudicating Authority further ordered that property of the 'Corporate

Debtor' had to be handed over to the Liquidator for the purpose of distribution

as per entitlement under the Code.

8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that only intimation was given

with regard to the sale. However, such submission cannot be accepted as the

Directors are not supposed to be present during the sale procedure nor under

the Code there is requirement to be informed for the purpose of such sale of

assets.

9. So far as the allegations levelled by the Liquidator against the Ex-Director

is concerned, it is submitted that no application has been filed. However, we are

of the view that the Appellant has been given two weeks' time to file reply.

In view of the aforesaid observations, we are of the view that no case is

made out.

Both the appeal(s) are dismissed. No Costs.

[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice A. I. S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)

ss/gc

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)No. 805-806 of 2019