Submission of Forged Document for Unlawful Benefit on Judicial Side: NCLAT Remits Mater to Adjudicating Authority [Read Order]
Submission of Forged Document for – Unlawful Benefit on Judicial Side – NCLAT Remits Mater to Adjudicating Authority – TAXSCAN
Submission of Forged Document for – Unlawful Benefit on Judicial Side – NCLAT Remits Mater to Adjudicating Authority – TAXSCAN
“Once the Adjudicating Authority has noticed that MOUs which were brought on record before the NCLT by the appellant were forged one, in that event the whole claim of the appellant was required to be rejected and has rightly been rejected.”
The Delhi bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal(NCLAT) remitted the matter to adjudicating authority on the submission of forged documents for unlawful benefit on the judicial side.
Sanjay Jain, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against an order dated 06.11.2020 passed by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Court III (Adjudicating Authority, which rejected the appeal filed under Section 60(5) of IBC. The appellant before the Adjudicating Authority had claimed Rs.5.20 crores. The RP had reduced the claim for Rs.5.20 crores to Rs.30 lakhs.
The Adjudicating Authority initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the company namely Dream Procon Pvt Ltd(Corporate Debtor). The case was initiated on the application filed by the financial creditor. After the initiation of the CIRP public announcement was made by the IRP whereafter the appellant submitted his claim to the IRP for units at the Project.
Initially, the said claim was acknowledged by the IRP. The appellant’s name appeared in the list of creditors. When the list of creditors was published in the same list the RP transferred the claim from the category of admitted claim to the claim under review. Since despite various follow-up actions by the appellant the RP failed to change the status of the claim of the appellant, he applied vide IA 3665/2020 in CP No. IB/1771(ND)/2018 under Section 60(5) of the IBC.
The appellant claimed that he had provided the Corporate Debtor with liaison and consultancy services for various collective services with different departments for which invoices were raised by the appellant on the Corporate Debtor. Upon payment having become due the Corporate Debtor had cited lack of funds as the reason for failure to repay.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar, Member (Judicial) and Dr Alok Srivastava, Member (Technical) observed that since Adjudicating Authority in its impugned order has noticed that MOUs which were the basis for the claim appears as forged documents, there is no reason to place reliance on such MOUs.
“Once the Adjudicating Authority has noticed that MOUs which were brought on record before the NCLT by the appellant were forged one, in that event the whole claim of the appellant was required to be rejected and has rightly been rejected.”, the NCLAT viewed.
Further held that “if any party brings on record any forged documents for getting unlawful benefit on the judicial side it would be necessary for the concerned Court to exercise its jurisdiction for examining the entire issue by entrusting same to investigating agency. In any event, such act of either party may not get any lenient approach by the concerned Court.”
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority with a request to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 340 of Cr PC in respect of alleged MOUs, regarding which observation has been given by the Adjudicating Authority as if those documents appeared to be fraudulent.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
