AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
21.01.2025: I.A. No. 8740 of 2024: This is an application praying for condonation of 14 days delay in filing the appeal. The order impugned was passed on 16.10.2024 and this appeal has been e-filed on 29.11.2024 with delay of 14 days. We find sufficient ground in Para 2(A) and (B) of the application for condonation of 14 days’ delay. Cause shown sufficient delay is condoned.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 16.10.2024 passed in the Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 1880 of 2024 filed under Section 19(2) by the Resolution Professional. Appellant was Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor and he is arrayed as Respondent No.1 in the application. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has directed the Appellant to supply the requisite information mentioned in Para No.16 within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the impugned order submits that the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who were Directors of the Corporate Debtor on behalf of the investor ought to have been directed to produce the documents but have been exonerated in the application. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Corporate Debtor was under full control of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the Adjudicating Authority has erred in not issuing direction to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, however, such directions have been issued to the Appellant.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
With regard to Respondent No.3 and 4 regarding whom grievance has been made, in Para 29 of the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority has made following observations:
“29.So far as Respondents No. 3 and 4 are concerned, their case is that they resigned as directors of the Corporate Debtor on 04.02.2020 and have also relied upon Form No. DIR-12 filed with the Registrar of the Companies with regard to their resignation from the Board of the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, prima facie, Respondents No. 3 and 4 who had resigned from the Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor in the year 2020, much prior to the commencement of the CIRP, cannot be supposed to be in possession of the documents and information pertaining to the Corporate Debtor as has been sought by the Applicant/RP.”
Respondents No. 3 and 4 resigned as directors of the Corporate Debtor on 04.02.2020 which is reflected in Form No. DIR-12 filed with the Registrar of the Companies and the CIRP commenced on 05.09.2023. We, thus, do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority in not issuing direction to Respondent No.3 and 4 and reasons given by the Adjudicating Authority that they have resigned much prior to the commencement of the CIRP cannot be said to be a faulty reason. We, thus, are of the view that no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in not issuing direction to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Learned counsel for the Appellant further contends that the Appellant has submitted all relevant documents which were in possession of the Appellant.
In this Appeal, we are not entering into issue as to whether the Appellant has given all relevant documents or not. It is for the Resolution Professional to take a call and enter into appropriate correspondence to the Appellant.
Learned counsel for the Appellant lastly submits that even if Respondent No.3 and 4 have resigned, the other directors who were on behalf of the Clarion Group may be called to provide documents.
It is for the Resolution Professional to take a call and not for us to issue any direction in this regard. With these observations, we dismiss the appeal.