# In the matter of Mr. Ashish Chaturvedi & Anr. Vs. Inox Leisure Limited & Ors. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1103 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-02-14. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00628. The appeal was filed by the ex-directors of E-Z Barter Private Limited (corporate debtor)…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 14 Feb 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00628
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/mr-ashish-chaturvedi-anr-vs-inox-leisure-limited-ors-company-appeal-b7ac033f

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed by the ex-directors of E-Z Barter Private Limited (corporate debtor) against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority had initiated CIRP against the Corporate Debtor following an application under Section 9 of the IBC. During the CIRP, the IRP filed applications alleging that the Appellants had withdrawn Rs. 32 lakhs during the moratorium period. The Adjudicating Authority allowed the applications and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each on the ex-directors. The ex-directors were also directed to provide records and financial information to the Resolution Professional. The Adjudicating Authority invoked Section 128(6) of the Companies Act and levied penalties due to the absence of any reply from the

…

## Facts

Mr. Ashish Chaturvedi and Mr. Sanjay Kapoor, ex-directors of A to Z Barter Private Limited, filed an appeal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority initiated CIRP against E-Z Barter Private Limited (corporate debtor) based on an application under Section 9 of the IBC. During the CIRP, the IRP alleged that the Appellants withdrew Rs. 32 lakhs during the moratorium period. The Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each on the Appellants for non-cooperation in providing records and financial information. The Appellants argued that the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction to impose penalties under the Companies Act. The liquidator sought financial information from the Appellants, but they failed to provide it. The

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority had the jurisdiction to impose penalties under the Companies Act …

**Ratio:** The tribunal held that since IA No. 1253/2020 was filed under the provisions of IBC, any

…

**Reasoning:** The tribunal reasoned that imposing penalties under the Companies Act while hearing a

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation is that the Adjudicating Authority should have invoked the

…

**Application:** The ratio and reasoning were applied to the specific facts of the case, where

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Alok Sriv…
- **Appellants:** Ashish Chat…
- **Respondents:** E-Z Barter…; INOX Leisure…
- **Advocates:** Manoj Kuma…; KD Sh…; +1 more

## Timeline

- **2018-12-05 — CIRP Init…**: Application under section 9 of IBC was admitted and CIRP was initiated against the…
- **2020-02-23 — Tribunal…**: Tribunal ordered to join the liquidator…

## 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/mr-ashish-chaturvedi-anr-vs-inox-leisure-limited-ors-company-appeal-b7ac033f