Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Learned counsel appearing for the LLP challenging the impugned order submits that the Adjudicating Authority committed error in quashing the Leave and License Agreement dated 30.06.2021 and the Deed of Usage dated 03.08.2021 whereas application I.A. No.908 of 2023 was filed only under Section 66-67 pf the I&B Code and in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 66-67, the Adjudicating Authority could not have cancelled the Leave and License Agreement and Deed of Usage. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has also observed that the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.959 & 960 of 2025 deeds cannot be cancelled in exercise of power under Section 66, however, the Adjudicating Authority treated the application as a composite application under Section 45, 49 and 66 and has exercised the jurisdiction under Section 45, 49 for cancelling the Leave and License Agreement as well as Usage Deed, which was beyond jurisdiction. The application filed by the Resolution Professional; I.A. No.908 of 2023 being an application only under Section 66, no jurisdiction could have been exercised by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 49 of the I&B Code. It is submitted that there was no pleading in I.A. No.908 of 2023 with respect to any ingredients under Section 45 of I&B Code and there being no pleading, the Respondents to the application had no occasion to rebut the allegations. It is submitted that exercise of power under Section 49 is uncalled for and the order of the Adjudicating Authority cancelling the Leave and License Agreement and Usage Deed was without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the transaction of Leave and License Agreement dated 30.06.2021 as well as Usage Deed dated 03.08.2021 cannot be held to be fraudulent trading. Ingredients of Section 45 were not even pleaded and proved, hence, order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is bad in law.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the Suspended Director submits that the High Court of Bombay by order dated 23.04.2024 passed in a Writ Petition filed by the Liquidator has already directed the LLP to vacate the premises on or before 03.07.2024 and to pay arrears of rent. The premises having already been vacated by the LLP and possession handed over to Liquidator, the relief (c) claimed in the application has become infructuous.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.959 & 960 of 2025 Learned counsel submitted that in so far as relief (d), direction for contribution of amount of Rs.2,68,00,701/- is concerned, the said direction is unsustainable. It is submitted that direction at best has to confine to payment of electricity dues which was paid by the Corporate Debtor. Direction for contribution of other amounts cannot be sustained. Ingredients of fraudulent trading was not proved. It is submitted that direction for initiating proceeding under Section 68 and 69 of the Code were also uncalled for. It is submitted that the application filed by the Resolution Professional was filed under Section 66 and it cannot be treated as composite application under Section 66, 45 and 49. The Adjudicating Authority committed error in treating the application as composite application and there being no pleadings within the meaning of Section 45 has wrongly directed for cancellation of Leave and License Agreement and Usage Deed. The Suspended Directors can at best be made liable for payment of electricity dues and water charges. As far as payment of salary to the staff that cannot be directed to be refunded.

27. There can be no dispute to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case. Non-mentioning of provisions of Section 44,45 and 49 may not be relevant, however, the pleading is essential ingredient which require to be proved for falling the transaction in above sections. Even if provision of Sections 44, 45 and 49 are not mentioned in the order, the Adjudicating Authority does not lack jurisdiction to exercise jurisdiction if there are sufficient pleadings and material on record. Present is a case where apart from application being not referred to be application under Section 44/45/46/47, there are no specific pleadings with respect to ingredients of above avoidance transactions. Learned counsel for the Suspended Director and LLP are right in their submission that even if a composite application is permitted under Section 44, 45 and 66, application must contain relevant pleadings. The application of the Resolution Professional was filed praying for reliefs under Section 66/67, we, thus, are of the view that the application filed by the Resolution Professional could not be treated to be a composite application under Section 45, 49 and 66, hence, the Adjudicating Authority could not have exercised power under Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.959 & 960 of 2025 Section 49 for cancelling the Usage Agreement and Leave and License Agreement.

(c) are not sought in terms of Section 66 of the Code in contradiction of prayer (d) where the relief has specifically been sought under section 66 leading to conclusion that the present application is a composite application seeking avoidance of transaction as well contribution u/s 66 of the Code."

34. We are in full agreement with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority that ingredients of Section 66(1) was fully proved and both the transactions were fraudulent transactions.