AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
17.07.2025: Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant as well as Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.
This appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, Court-VI in IA No. 6059/ND/2022.
The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has directed the Appellant to remit the amount of Rs.25 lakhs to the RP of the CD within 15 days. Aggrieved by the order, this appeal has been filed.
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submitted that Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issue which was raised in the application by the RP and secondly under the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court which has been followed, the amount was to be paid to entity Gothic Entertainment hence, the said amount could not have been paid to the CD.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent refuting the submission submits that Appellant who is Ex- Director of the CD did not appear before the Adjudicating Authority in the application under Section 19(2) by the RP. It is submitted that the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court which is referred to by the Appellant clearly indicates that Respondent No.1 had returned the amount to the Appellant and the Appellant had to deposit the amount in CD’s account hence, she was liable to deposit the amount.
It is submitted that no adjudication of any issue was needed since amount of Rs.25 lakhs which was refunded by the Respondent No.1 was given to appellant.
We have considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
The application was filed by the Resolution Professional being IA No. 6059/2022, seeking direction for remittance of the amount of Rs.25 lakhs in which application, following prayers were made:
“a. Allow the present Application;
b. Pass an order directing Respondent No.1 to refund an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the Corporate Debtor alongwith pendente lite interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of realization of the amount;
c. pass such other or further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.”
It is on record that Respondent No. 1 to the application had already refunded the amount of Rs.25 lakhs for CD in the account of appellant since the account of corporate debtor was inoperative and the amount which was refunded by Mr. Abhishek Bachchan could not be received in the account of the corporate debtor.
It is submitted that amount having been received by the appellant which was on behalf of the corporate debtor, adjudicating authority has rightly directed the appellant to remit the amount.
Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the additional affidavit filed by the appellant in the present appeal, where in paragraph 8, the present appellant has pleaded as follows:
“I say that pursuant to the High Court Order, the Corporate Debtor through its Director Mrs. Protima Arora, addressed a letter dated 18th March 2020 to Answering Respondent, inter alia, acknowledging receipt of the said demand draft and requesting for issuing a fresh pay order/demand draft in favour of Mrs. Premaa Arora i.e. Respondent No.3 herein, which would be treated as full refund of signing amount. The said letter also irrevocably confirmed that upon receipt of a fresh pay order in favour of Respondent No.3 herein, neither the Corporate Debtor nor its affiliates/ associates will have any claim against Answering Respondent. This letter was duly acknowledged on behalf of the Respondents No.2 &
3.Hereto annexed and marked as Annexure – 1 is a copy of the letters dated 18th March 2020 addressed by the Corporate Debtor to this Respondent.”
The averment of the appellant is that amount returned back from Mr. Abhishek Bachchan was received by appellant on behalf of the corporate debtor.
We are of the view that the amount which was received on behalf of the corporate debtor by the appellant from Mr. Abhishek Bachchan was liable to be refunded to the corporate debtor and in the application filed by the RP, adjudicating authority has rightly directed for remittance of the amount to the corporate debtor by the appellant. Insofar as the submission of the appellant that adjudication ought not to have been done by the adjudicating authority on the said issue, suffice it to say that there was no dispute with regard to corporate debtor’s entitlement of Rs.25 lakhs from Mr. Abhishek Bachchan and return of the said amount by Mr. Abhishek Bachchan to the corporate debtor which amount due to account of the corporate debtor being in operative was received by the appellant, in the said background adjudicating authority has rightly directed the appellant to refund the amount.
With the above observations, we dismiss the appeal and vacate the impugned order.