AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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 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.