# In the matter of Reji Sivankutty & Anr.
VS.
Shaw Jeff Christopher Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 36 of 2022

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-08-02. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00310. This case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 2 Aug 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00310
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/reji-sivankutty-anr-vs-shaw-jeff-christopher-company-appeal-00e9361f

## Summary

### Background

This case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench) regarding preferential transactions by the Appellants, who are related to the Corporate Debtor. The Liquidator filed an application seeking to declare certain transactions as preferential and to recover the amounts. The Adjudicating Authority ruled in favor of the Liquidator, finding that the Appellants had engaged in preferential transactions.

## Facts

The Corporate Debtor was admitted into CIRP on 2019-09-13, and liquidation was ordered on 2020-02-19, with the Respondent appointed as Liquidator. The Liquidator filed an application alleging preferential transactions by the Appellants, Reji Sivankutty and Revathy Radhakrishnan, who are related to the Corporate Debtor. Reji Sivankutty is the Promoter/Suspended Director, and Revathy Radhakrishnan is his wife. The Liquidator claimed that Rs.42,50,397/- was repaid to Reji Sivankutty and Rs.6,28,000/- to Revathy Radhakrishnan during the financial year 2017-18, which were preferential payments over other creditors. The Liquidator relied on a transaction audit and forensic audit report that identified these transactions as preferential. The Appellants failed to provide

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority in holding that the transactions are …

**Ratio:** Section 43 of the I&B Code defines preferential transactions. A transaction is

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT considered the auditor's report, which identified the transactions as

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of Section 43 involves determining whether the transactions

…

**Application:** The NCLAT applied the ratio to the facts of the case, noting that the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** M. Venu…; KanthiNar…
- **Appellants:** Reji Siva…
- **Respondents:** Achariya Techno…; SHAWN JEFF…
- **Advocates:** Ravi Rajag…

## Timeline

- **2019-09-13 — CIRP Init…**: The Adjudicating Authority admitted the…
- **2020-02-19 — Liquidation…**: Liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor was ordered, and the Respondent was appointed…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 35(1) — Powers and duties of liquidator](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-35)

---

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/reji-sivankutty-anr-vs-shaw-jeff-christopher-company-appeal-00e9361f