AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Appellant appearing in person. By this Appeal the order dated 25.01.2022 has been challenged to the limited extent in so far as observations have been made with regard to the Appellant herein who was a Director of the Corporate Debtor against whom Section 9 Application was filed by Respondent No.1. Section 9 application has been rejected by the impugned order.
Appellant appearing in person submits that the observation made in order that there was active collusion between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor to defraud the other creditors is not correct. He submits that there is no other creditor of the Corporate Debtor, hence, the observations were made without there being any material.
In the facts of the present case, specifically when Application under Section 9 has been rejected, we see no reason to entertain this Appeal. We, however, observe that the observations made in Para 5 of the impugned order may not be treated to any adverse observation against the Appellant so as to initiate any further action. With these observations, the Appeal is disposed of.