Satichidananda Joshi Member Of The ... vs Sandip Kumar Kejriwal & Anr

IN THE MATTER OF: Satichidananda Joshi ...Appellant

Versus

Sandip Kumar Kejriwal & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. D.N. Sharma, Mr. Kunal Godhwani and Ms. Kinjal Chadha, Advocates

For Respondent : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha, Ms. Asmita Rakhecha, Mr. Saunjit Shah and Ms. Alina Merlin Mathew, Advocates

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

05.09.2024 Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Mr.

Krishnendu Datta Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.11.2023 by which

the Adjudicating Authority has admitted Section 7 Application filed by SREI

Equipment Finance Limited.

The submission which has been advanced by Learned Counsel for the

Appellant is that in the Application under Section 66 which was filed by the

Administrator of the SEFL and SIFL, the transaction in question which is

subject matter of the Section 7 Application has been termed as a fraudulent

transaction and it was treated that the said transaction was only for routing

the money from the Corporate Debtor to another entity.

The submissions made by Counsel for the Appellant has disputed by

Mr. Datta. It is submitted that the amount was given on low rate interest and

further the Corporate Debtor has mortgaged it assets which were sold and

amount was adjusted and only it was for balance amount the Section 7

Application was filed. The Adjudicating Authority has admitted Section 7

Application observing that the pendency of Section 66 application in no

manner preclude the consideration of Section 7 Application.

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

There is no dispute that Section 66 application which has been filed by

the Administrator is pending before the Adjudicating Authority which we have

already noticed in our order dated 05.02.2024. Learned Counsel for the

Respondent has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in Company Appeal

(AT) (Insolvency) No. 246 of 2024 New era Propcon Private Limited and Anr.

Vs SREI Equipment Finance Limited & Anr. where this Tribunal has rejected

the similar submission which has been advanced by the Appellant. Learned

Counsel for the Appellant tried to distinguish the judgment on the ground

that in the present case, the disbursement is an issue which was not an issue

in New era Propcon Private Limited.

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the

record. The facts that the mortgaged property of the Corporate Debtor were

sold to repay the part of loan and which was adjusted is not disputed. It is an

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 113 of 2024 2 of 3 admitted fact and the disbursement of amount was made to the Corporate

Debtor.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any error in the order

of Adjudicating Authority admitting Section 7 of the Application. We however,

observe that any observation made by the Adjudicating Authority by admitting

Section 7 Application shall not have any bearing while deciding Section 66

Application which has been filed by the Administrator and the Section 66

Application shall be independently heard and decided in accordance with law

without being influenced by the observation made in the impugned order as

well as observation made by us in the present appeal. Subject to above, Appeal

is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) pks/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 113 of 2024 3 of 3