The Janata Cooperative Bank Ltd vs Mr. Suresh Kumar Jain & Ors

The Janata Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Suresh Kumar Jain & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Raina, Adv. with Mohd. Zahid, Manager of Appellant Bank For Respondents : Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Parthvi Ahuja, Prapti Singh, Adv. for RP.

ORDER

16.11.2022: This appeal is filed by the Bank against the order dated

04.10.2021 by which the Adjudicating Authority, while deciding I.A. No. 3135 of

2020 in (IB)-1731/(ND)/2019 in the matter of Suresh Kumar Jain Vs. Shakeel

Ahmad & Ors. has passed the following order:

"12. In our view, these transactions are covered under the provisions of the 66 of the Code. Therefore, we allow this I.A. No, 3135/2020 in Company Petition No. (IB)-1731(ND)/2019. Since the suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor i.e, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 knowingly carried on transactions which cannot be explained. Therefore they are held liable to bear the liability of the corporate debtor company. It is further directed to the respondent no. 1 and respondent No. 2 to compensate and refund back all the amount so raised, received, disposed off or utilized vide these fraudulent transactions. Though there is no direct proof of involvement, however, the Auditor i.e. the respondent No. 3 has signed the balance sheet and the auditor's report. The Auditor's report does not give a valid explanation with respect to these transactions and saying that the report was merely on the basis of the documents supplied to him does not absolve him of his duties. The RP may take appropriate steps by filing complaint against respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 before the concerned authorities under which they are regulated being the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Reserve to Bank of India or any other body. Further, the respondent no. 3 and respondent No. 4 are also directed to pay fine of Rs,1,00,000/- (One Lakh) each in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund."

2. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid

order a complaint has already been filed before the RBI. It is further submitted

that FDR of Rs. 1 Lacs has been deposited in favour of the Registrar, NCLAT,

New Delhi in terms of the order dated 04.01.2022 passed in this Appeal. The

only prayer in this appeal is for converting the word fine to cost.

3. We have heard Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record are

of the considered opinion that the Appellant has been saddled with a sum of Rs.

1 Lacs for the alleged short coming on its part but keeping in view of the totality

of the facts and circumstances, it hereby ordered that the word fine of Rs. 1 lac,

mentioned in Para 12 of the impugned order shall be read as cost of Rs. 1 lac

which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.

4. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The order

dated 04.10.2021 is hereby modified to the extent that the amount of Rs. 1 lac,

deposited by the Appellant by way of Fixed Deposit in the name of the Registrar

of NCLAT, New Delhi shall now be deposited by the Registrar of NCLAT, New

Delhi in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within a period of four weeks.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical) sc/rr