Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

a. The Alleged 2014 Pledge Agreement could not have been challenged in the first instance by the Liquidator in its Preference Application since a copy of the Alleged 2014 Pledge Agreement surfaced for the first time, in the reply to the Preference Application.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 102- 104 of 2021 b. The Impugned 2016 Pledge Agreement was challenged by the Liquidator in its Preference Application since Innoventive Ventures Ltd (IVL)/Appellant had invoked 2016 Pledge Agreement by its notice dated 4 January 2018. In the notice sent by IVL Appellant (notice signed by Ms. Pournima Gadiya), only 2016 Pledge Agreement is invoked and there is no mention of Alleged 2014 Pledge Agreement. In fact, till date, there is no invocation of the Alleged 2014 Pledge Agreement.

17. It is also stated by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that the non-

production of the Alleged 2014 Pledge Agreement by IVL/Appellant in its Claim Form was not the result of any "difficulty" or "inadvertence" as claimed. Rather, the said agreement is nothing but a concocted document to deflect attention from the Impugned 2016 Pledge Agreement to escape the look back period (2 years in case of related party). Assuming without admitting the existence and/ or validity of the Alleged 2014 Pledge Agreement, it has been rightly held by the Adjudicating Authority that the Liquidator has questioned the execution of the Impugned 2016 Pledge Agreement dated 25th November 2016 which was executed at the relevant time i.e., two years before the initiation of CIRP and by which the CD pledged 100% shares held by it in IAI/ Respondent No. 2 in favour of IVL/ Appellant. Thus, if at all, there was any such agreement as the Alleged 2014 Pledge Agreement under which it is claimed that 85% of IAI Shares Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 102- 104 of 2021 were pledged in favour of IVL/ Appellant, the said alleged agreement would stand substituted/ subsumed/ superseded by the Impugned 2016 Pledge Agreement by which the CD pledged its entire (100%) equity stake in IAI/ Respondent No. 2 in favour of IVL/Appellant. Further, as rightly held by the Adjudicating Authority, since IVL/Appellant did not make any reference to the Alleged 2014 Pledge Agreement either in the pledge invocation letter or in its Claim Dorm and only relied upon the Impugned 2016 Pledge Agreement, IVL/ Appellant is estopped by conduct from making any claims based on the Alleged 2014 Pledge Agreement.