AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
11.07.2025: Heard counsel for the appellant as well as Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal Cuttack Bench, in IA (IB) No. 323/CB/2023 in CP(IB) No. 176/CTB/2019. An application under Section 60(5), Section 66 read with Section 14 and Section 17 of the IBC was filed by the Liquidator against the appellant who was arrayed as respondent no.4 in the application seeking a direction, the prayers in the application has been extracted in para-1 of the judgment which is as follows:-
“1.The present Application. bearing IA (IB) No. 323/CB/2023 has been filed by Dr. Bakim Shukla i.e. the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor, M/s Plutus Infraventures Private Limited under Section 60(5) and Section 66 read with Section 14 and 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’/‘Code’) read with Rule 11 of National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 seeking the following set of directions against the Respondents:
a. Direct the Respondents to contribute to the Corporate Debtor the sum of Rs. 30,47,238/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Eight Only) along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum or at such other rate as this Hon'ble Tribunal as it may deem fit, from 19.03.2022 till the date of complete payment to the Corporate Debtor; and
b. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit.”
The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties issued directions to the appellant to contribute the said amount of Rs. 30,47,238/- aggrieved by which order this appeal has been filed.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that application was filed under Section 66(3) and the appellant is entitled to for the benefit of Section 67(2) to be treated as creditor of the CD. It is submitted that there are no finding with regard to Section 66 against the appellant that there was any fraudulent transaction.
Counsel appearing for the liquidator submits that order passed by Adjudicating Authority was only under Section 14 which is clear from para-10 of the order. A perusal of the order indicates that there are no findings under Section 66 against the appellant nor the order is passed under Section 14, the Adjudicating Authority has referred to Section 14 and has directed for contribution on the ground that CIRP has commenced on 15.03.2025 and subsequent to commencement of the CIRP the amount was paid to the appellant.
We thus hold that the impugned order is an order under Section 14 and is not an order under Section 66 holding any fraudulent transaction. Ld. Counsel for the appellant lastly contended he should be permitted to file a claim before the liquidator. We are of the view that the applicant is free to file its claim before the liquidator which can be decided in accordance with law. With the above observations, we dismiss this appeal.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that within four weeks he shall refund the amount to the liquidator.