# In the matter of Altair Industrial Technologies Private Limited

> NCLT judgment dated 2024-03-20. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLT-02003. The case involves an Interlocutory Application filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) of…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 20 Mar 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLT-02003
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/altair-industrial-technologies-private-limited-99c2a76f

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an Interlocutory Application filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) of Altair Industrial Technologies Private Limited, seeking directions against the respondents for preferential and fraudulent transactions. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) commenced on February 26, 2019. The RP sought the remittance of INR 28,60,000 by Respondent No. 1 and INR 13,55,000 by Respondent No. 3 into the Corporate Debtor's account, alleging these were preferential payments. Additionally, the RP sought the remittance of INR 1,99,26,112 by Respondent No. 1, claiming it was fraudulently withdrawn/misappropriated, and the return of current assets removed from the Corporate Debtor's registered office.

## Facts

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) commenced against Altair Industrial Technologies Private Limited on February 26, 2019. Mr. Sunil G. Nanal was initially appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The Committee of Creditors (CoC) consisted of Bank of India and SIDBI. In the first CoC meeting on March 27, 2019, it was decided to replace the IRP with Mr. Harshad S. Deshpande as the Resolution Professional (RP). A forensic audit was conducted for the period from February 27, 2017, to February 26, 2019. The audit revealed transactions between the Corporate Debtor and related parties, including Respondents No. 1 and 3. Respondent No. 1 allegedly withdrew INR 1,99,26,112 from the Corporate Debtor's Kotak Mahindra Bank account between February

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the transactions involving Respondent No. 1, including the withdrawal of INR 1,99,26,112 …

**Ratio:** The principle is that after the imposition of a moratorium, a suspended director has no

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that Respondent No. 1 had no authority to operate the Corporate

…

**Interpretation:** This interprets that any transaction carried out by a suspended director after

…

**Application:** The court applied this principle to the fact that Respondent No. 1 withdrew INR

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Kuldip Kumar…; ANIL RAJ C…
- **Appellants:** Harshad S.…
- **Respondents:** Altair Industrial…; Anoop A…

## Timeline

- **2018-01-01 — CP (IB) No. 436…**: Filing of Corporate…
- **2019-02-26 — Commencement…**: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process…

## 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/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/altair-industrial-technologies-private-limited-99c2a76f