# In the matter of Deepak Parasuraman & Anr. Vs. Sripriya Kumar & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 349 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2021-09-21. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00081. This is a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 349 of 2020 filed before the National Company…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 21 Sept 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00081
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/deepak-parasuraman-anr-vs-sripriya-kumar-anr-company-appeal-68880ba8

## Summary

### Background

This is a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 349 of 2020 filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi. The appeal arises out of an order dated 01.02.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Special Bench, Chennai in MA/987/2019 in IBA/330/2019. The Adjudicating Authority allowed MA No. 987/2019 filed by the Resolution Professional under Section 43 and 66 read with 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Adjudicating Authority held that the transfer of the Corporate Debtor's funds to Respondent No. 1 (Appellant No. 2) was for fraudulent purposes and directed Respondent No. 2 (Appellant No. 1) and Respondent No. 3 (Respondent No. 2) to jointly and severally contribute

…

## Facts

The Appellant No. 2, Ingenium Advisory LLP, is a Limited Liability Partnership Firm providing business consultancy, global management consulting, advisory services, corporate restructuring, and financial advisory. The Appellant No. 1, Deepak Parasuraman, is the Designated Partner of Appellant No. 2. The Corporate Debtor, Perfect International Private Limited, and the Appellant No. 2 entered into two agreements dated 12.10.2015 and 16.08.2016. As per the agreement dated 12.10.2015, the Appellant No. 2 agreed to provide consulting on business and restructuring on behalf of the Corporate Debtor, including arranging for Long Term and Working Capital Debt. The Appellant No. 2 was to charge a 3% commission fee on the loan amount raised, with Rs. 5 Lacs to be paid in advance.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority committed an …

**Ratio:** The principle is that the Adjudicating Authority must act within the bounds of the law

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT considered all the facts and provisions of the law and concluded that there was

…

**Interpretation:** The Adjudicating Authority's order was based on a proper assessment of the

…

**Application:** The NCLAT found no reason to overturn the Adjudicating Authority's order, as it

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Anant Bijay…; Shreesha…
- **Appellants:** DEEPAK PARA…
- **Respondents:** Perfect Internatio…; Sripriya…
- **Advocates:** Gaurav…; Akshat…; +4 more

## Timeline

- **2015-10-12 — Agreement between Corporate Debtor and…**: The Corporate Debtor and Appellant No. 2 entered into an agreement where Appellant No. 2…
- **2016-08-16 — Second Agreement between Corporate Debtor and…**: The Corporate Debtor and Appellant No. 2 entered into an agreement where Appellant No. 2…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 43 — Preferential transactions and relevant time](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-43)

---

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/deepak-parasuraman-anr-vs-sripriya-kumar-anr-company-appeal-68880ba8