# In the matter of Renuka Devi Rangaswamy vs. Madhusudan Khemka & Ors. Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 356 of 2022

> NCLAT judgment dated 2023-06-05. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLAT-00456. The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 5 Jun 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLAT-00456
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/renuka-devi-rangaswamy-vs-madhusudan-khemka-ors-company-appeal-05867ece

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Division Bench – II, Chennai, in IA (IBC)/487(CHE)/2021 in IBA/1424/2019. The appellant, the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of M/s. Regen Infrastructure and Services Pvt. Ltd., challenged the impugned order, arguing that the NCLT incorrectly ignored documented evidence related to the purchase of land using funds from the Corporate Debtor. The appellant alleged fraudulent transactions involving the transfer of assets to a related party, M/s. Lakshmiranga Perumal Renewable Energy (P) Ltd., and sought to declare certain sale deeds as fraudulent and void.

## Facts

The Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of M/s. Regen Infrastructure and Services Pvt. Ltd. filed an application before the NCLT alleging that the company's funds were used to purchase agricultural lands, but the sale deeds were registered in the name of M/s. Lakshmiranga Perumal Renewable Energy (P) Ltd., a related party. The IRP claimed that this constituted a fraudulent transaction. The lands in question are located in Morbi District, Gujarat. The IRP submitted evidence, including sale deeds and bank statements, to support the claim that the Corporate Debtor's funds were used for the land purchases. The IRP also argued that the transactions were not conducted at arm's length and that the related party received no consideration for the lands. The respondents

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in ignoring the documented evidence presented by the …

**Ratio:** The court must insist on documentary proof in support of pleadings and critically examine

…

**Reasoning:** The Adjudicating Authority proceeded on the assertion of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that

…

**Interpretation:** The court must carefully and critically examine pleadings and documents to

…

**Application:** The Appellant presented documentary evidence, but the Adjudicating Authority

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** M. Venu…; Shreesha…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Renuka Devi…
- **Respondents:** Regen Infrastructu…; Madhusudan…
- **Advocates:** T.K. Bh…

## Timeline

- **2019-01-01 — IBA/1424…**: Filing of IBA/1…
- **2021-01-07 — Email to Committee of…**: Appellant informed the 'Committee of Creditors Members', pertaining to the lands…

## 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/renuka-devi-rangaswamy-vs-madhusudan-khemka-ors-company-appeal-05867ece