The NCLAT New Delhi held that allegations of fraud and forgery are very easy to make but very difficult to prove.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson and Dr. Alok Srivastava and Barun Mitra, Technical Members were hearing an Appeal of the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor and held that the allegations of fraud and forgery are very easy to make but very difficult to prove.
This Appeal has been filed by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor challenging the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench admitting the Section 7 application filed by the Financial Creditor.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Financial Creditor in support of the Section 7 application has not filed any statutory certificate as required by Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872. The Financial Creditor was required to file the certified copies as prescribed under clause (3) of Section 2 of the Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891 and in absence of such certified copies the Court should not be obliged to admit Section 7 application. No Balance Sheet admissible as evidence was annexed with the Section 7 application, hence, the application was liable to be rejected.
In the present case, the Corporate Debtor has also made allegations against the Financial Creditor that the Financial Creditor itself was undergoing insolvency resolution and there are serious allegations of fraud and concealing information.
The Appellate Authority noted that the allegations of fraud and forgery are very easy to make but very difficult to prove. In the event, the case of the Corporate Debtor was that the insolvency proceedings were initiated fraudulently or with malicious intent for any purpose other than for the resolution of insolvency, it is always open for the Appellant to make an application under Section 65 of the Code before the Adjudicating Authority and it is for the Adjudicating Authority to consider such application.
The Appeal was dismissed.
Kommentare