Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(v) Aggrieved by the said order, these Appeals have been filed.

6. We have heard Mr. Abhijeet Sinha appearing for Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 405 and 369 of 2022 and Mr. Gaurav Mitra Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 405, 369 and 412 of 2022 appearing for the Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 412 of 2022. Learned Counsel - Ms. Puja Mahajan has appeared for Resolution Professional.

7. Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Learned Counsel for the Appellant in support of the Appeal submits that Appellants in Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 405 of 2022 as well as Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 369 of 2022 are not related party to the Corporate Debtor and the transactions which have been held to be preferential transactions by the Adjudicating Authority were transactions which were entered into ordinary course of business of the Corporate Debtor. The Appellants had extended loan facility to the Corporate Debtor and the antecedent liability towards the Appellants' is admitted; The Corporate Debtor on various dates occurring into look back period repaid the amount of loan. The loan was taken by the Corporate Debtor from the appellants for the purposes of running the corporate debtor as a going concern and the amount which was received from the Appellant was utilized by the corporate debtor for running its business and meeting its liabilities. The repayments by the Corporate Debtor was in ordinary course of business and were towards financial affairs of the corporate debtor which are clearly exempted from the preferential transactions within the meaning of Section 43 of the Code. It is further submitted that composite application filed by the RP under Section 43, 44, 45, 46, 66, 67 and 60(5) of the Code raising allegations against several party under different provisions of the Code was not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Anuj Jain, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 405, 369 and 412 of 2022 IRP for Jaypee Infratech Limited Vs. Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors.", (2020) 8 SCC 401.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 405, 369 and 412 of 2022

52. We thus are of the view that the submissions of the Appellant on the ground that the transaction was entered into by the Corporate Debtor due to pressure put on it has no relevance and shall not change the nature of transaction from preferential transaction.

53. Now coming to the submission of Learned Counsel for the Appellant that composite application under Section 43, 44, 45, 46, 66, 67 and 60(5) of the Code could not have been filed by the RP as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we may first notice the law as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme in paragraph 32.1 in "Anuj Jain" (supra). In paragraph 32.1, observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are as follows:

"32.1. However, we are impelled to make one comment as regards the application made by IRP. It is noticed that in the present case, the IRP moved one composite application purportedly under Sections 43, 45 and 66 of the Code while alleging that the transactions in question were preferential as also undervalued and fraudulent. In our view, in the scheme of the Code, the parameters and the requisite enquiries as also the consequences in relation to these aspects are different and such difference is explicit in the related provisions. As noticed, the question of intent is not involved in Section 43 and by virtue of legal fiction, upon existence of the given ingredients, a transaction is deemed to be of giving preference at a relevant time. However, whether a transaction is undervalued requires a different enquiry as per Sections 45 and 46 of the Code and significantly, such application can also be made by the creditor under Section 47 of the Code. The consequences of Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 405, 369 and 412 of 2022 undervaluation are contained in Sections 48 and 49. Per Section 49, if the undervalued transaction is referable to sub-section (2) of Section 45, the Adjudicating Authority may look at the intent to examine if such undervaluation was to defraud the creditors. On the other hand, the provisions of Section 66 related to fraudulent trading and wrongful trading entail the liabilities on the persons responsible therefor. We are not elaborating on all these aspects for being not necessary as the transactions in question are already held preferential and hence, the order for their avoidance is required to be approved; but it appears expedient to observe that the arena and scope of the requisite enquiries, to find if the transaction is undervalued or is intended to defraud the creditors or had been of wrongful/fraudulent trading are entirely different. Specific material facts are required to be pleaded if a transaction is sought to be brought under the mischief sought to be remedied by Sections 45/46/47 or Section 66 of the Code. As noticed, the scope of enquiry in relation to the questions as to whether a transaction is of giving preference at a relevant time, is entirely different. Hence, it would be expected of any resolution professional to keep such requirements in view while making a motion to the Adjudicating Authority."

54. What has been emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that ingredients of Section 43, 45 and 66 are different and Resolution Professional is expected to keep such requirement in view while making motion to the Adjudicating Authority. When we look into the Application Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 405, 369 and 412 of 2022 which has been filed in the present case the Resolution Professional has in the avoidance application in his application has dealt with preferential transaction undertaken by the Corporate Debtor and undervalued transaction undertaken by the Corporate Debtor as well as fraudulent transaction in different heads i.e. 'i', 'ii' and 'iii' thus allegations and averments were separately made and filing of composite application does not lead to any infirmity in the Application. We are not persuaded to accept the submission of the Appellant that since the composite Application was filed it ought to have been rejected.