Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent, in the meeting of the CoC informed that the account of the company has been declared as fraud and the Resolution Professional, viz., the 13th respondent was asked to record the same in the minutes of the meeting dated 13.8.2021. Though the petitioner sought the copy of the audit report, however, the same was not provided to the petitioner. The account of the company was held to be 'Fraud' and declared so without an opportunity of hearing and even in the forensic audit, the Forensic Auditor had informed that there was no instructions from the CoC to share the forensic audit report with the petitioner. The above act of the CoC is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and aggrieved by the act of the CoC in declaring the account of the company as fraud and also the act of the 2 nd respondent in terming the account of the company as RFA, the present petition has been filed.

17. The whole crux of the issue raised by the petitioner is that before the subsequent ASM Audit Report could be received, the 2nd respondent had declared the account of the company as RFA. The grievance of the petitioner is that before declaring the account as RFA, no notice or opportunity has been granted to the company.

18. In this regard, it is to be pointed out that even the affidavit of the petitioner reveals that initially in the meeting held on 29.2.20, the Consortium of Lenders had not unilaterally decided to accept the stand of the 2 nd respondent to declare the account of the company as RFA. The above act of the Consortium clearly reveals that what has been circulated is a communication between the members of the consortium as to the standing of the company on the books of account of the consortium. The account was sought to be declared as RFA as the ASM Audit Report had given a gloomy picture according to the 2nd respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  ____________ However, as pointed out above, further ASM Audit Report was called for and based on discussion in the consortium meeting dated 5.5.20, based on the forensic audit, red flagging of the account was decided to be taken up. From the above, it is evident that even as on 5.5.20, the account was not red flagged, but the communication that emanated from the 2nd respondent is only an internal communication between the members of the consortium with regard to the status of one of the account.