AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
21.05.2025: Heard Counsel for the Appellant.
This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 04.02.2025 passed in IA No. 1833 of 2019 filed by the Resolution Professional. The CIRP with respect to the Corporate Debtor Sunil Hi-Tech Engineering Limited commenced on 07.09.2018 and order was delivered on 10.09.2018 on which date moratorium was also imposed. After enforcement of moratorium certain payments were made which include the payment to the present appellant on 10.09.2018 to 14.09.2018. Payments obviously was made in favour of the appellant by suspended directors. Application was filed by the Resolution Professional seeking a direction to the respondents to the application to refund the said amount which was paid in violation of the moratorium. The said application has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,92,00,000/-.
Shri Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that the contract which was in favour of the appellant was continuing even on the date when moratorium was imposed and the appellant was thus working on the continuing contract and his entitlement to receive the amount was very much there. He submits that Resolution Professional has chosen not to file application with respect to certain other operational creditors who were paid subsequent to 10.09.2018 and had chosen to file application with respect to only four vendors Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 to the application. He submits that when application was not filed from refund of the amount from other vendors direction for refund made by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order cannot be sustained.
We have considered the submission of the counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
The facts and the findings returned by the Adjudicating Authority clearly indicate that payments were made to the appellant after imposition of moratorium by the suspended directors. After moratorium is imposed no payments can be made without approval of the Resolution Professional and payments were made to the appellant in breach of the moratorium.
We do not find any error in the order directing for refund of the amount. In so far as the submissions of the appellant that appellant’s contract was continuing and he was entitled for the payment. The appellant with respect to the amount directed to the refunded is free resubmit his bills and claims which needs to be considered by the Resolution Professional/ Liquidator in accordance with law.
The submission of the appellant that since application was not filed with regard to some other vendors who may have paid does not commend us. No equality can be claim with regard to an illegality. It is not for us to examine the cases of those vendors for whom no application has been filed for refund.
We thus are of the view that no grounds have been made out to interfere with the impugned order subject to observations and liberty as above, the appeal is dismissed.