# In the matter of Actioncor Consultants Private Limited vs. Viprah Technologies Limited T.A. No. 190-2021 (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 916-2019)

> NCLAT judgment dated 2023-06-01. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLAT-00466. The case involves an appeal against an order dated 18/07/2019 passed by the National Company…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 1 Jun 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLAT-00466
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/actioncor-consultants-private-limited-vs-viprah-technologies-limited-ta-no-190-2-eba8caec

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order dated 18/07/2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai Bench, which dismissed a Section 7 application filed by M/s Actioncor Consultants Private Limited seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s. Viprah Technologies Limited. The appellant claimed that they had provided a loan to the respondent, which the respondent failed to repay. The respondent was registered with the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) as a sick industrial company. The appellant argued that an investment agreement was entered into between Mr. KKM (representing the appellant) and Mr. Subramanian and Mrs. Sujatha (representing the respondent), whereby the appellant agreed to

…

## Facts

The Respondent Company, M/s. Viprah Technologies Limited, was registered with the 'Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction' (‘BIFR') as a sick Industrial Company. Mr. Coimbatore Krishnan Anantha Subramanian approached Mr. Khodadad Khushroo Moradian for a loan of Rs.1,24,00,000/- to pay off the debt of the Secured Creditors of the Company. Between 22/11/2010 to 18/07/2011, there were e-mail communications between Mr. KKM and Mr. Subramanian, with the intention that a loan would be provided by the Appellant for revival of the Respondent Company. On 14/07/2010, an ‘Investment agreement' was entered into between Mr. KKM, Mr. Subramanian, and Mrs. Sujatha Ananth, whereby, the Appellant agreed to disburse Rs. 1,40,00,000. On 16/08/2010, an ‘Addendum Agreement' to

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the amount lent by the Appellant to Mr. Subramanian and his wife Mrs. Sujatha representing …

**Ratio:** The ratio is that amounts taken by directors in their personal capacity, even if used for

…

**Reasoning:** The Tribunal reasoned that there was no evidence on record to establish that the amount

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of 'Financial Debt' under Section 5(8) of the Code requires

…

**Application:** In this case, the Tribunal applied the ratio and reasoning to the facts by

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** M. Venu…; Shreesha…
- **Appellants:** M/s. Actioncor…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Viprah…
- **Advocates:** T.K. Bh…; P.J. Sri…

## Timeline

- **2006-01-01 — Registration w…**: Respondent Company registered with 'Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction'…
- **2010-07-14 — Investment Ag…**: An ‘Investment agreement' was entered into between Mr. KKM, Mr. Subramanian, and Mrs.…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/actioncor-consultants-private-limited-vs-viprah-technologies-limited-ta-no-190-2-eba8caec