# In the matter of Divyaswarna (OPC) Private Limited

> NCLT judgment dated 2024-09-25. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLT-00544. The case involves an application under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016,…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 25 Sept 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLT-00544
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/divyaswarna-opc-private-limited-b1892ad7

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an application under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, concerning fraudulent transactions by Divyaswarna (OPC) Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor. The Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) filed the application seeking an order adjudging certain transactions as fraudulent. The IRP's application was based on a preliminary investigation and a transaction audit that revealed cash withdrawals and the establishment of a new proprietorship business by the respondent, Ankur Verma, with a similar nature of business as the Corporate Debtor.

## Facts

Divyaswarna (OPC) Private Limited is the Corporate Debtor. Seemant Nahata is the Operational Creditor. Sudipto Ghosh is the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) appointed for Divyaswarna (OPC) Private Limited. Ankur Verma is the respondent. The IRP filed an application under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, alleging fraudulent transactions. The IRP's investigation revealed that Rs. 36.75 lakhs were withdrawn by self-cheques after the receipt of a demand notice. The respondent, Ankur Verma, allegedly opened a sole proprietorship jewellery business under the name and style of Divya Swarna Jewels, carrying on the same business as the Corporate Debtor. The last available audited balance sheet of the Corporate Debtor was on 31st March, 2019, and

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the time period under Regulation 35(A) of the CIRP regulations is mandatory or directory in …

**Ratio:** The time period under Regulation 35(A) of the CIRP regulations is not mandatory but only

…

**Reasoning:** The court relied on the decision of the Hon'ble NCLAT in Mr. Tenny Josh Vs. Mr. Prathap

…

**Interpretation:** Regulation 35(A) of the CIRP Regulations prescribes a timeline for the IRP to

…

**Application:** The court condoned the delay in filing the application and proceeded to examine

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** BIDISHA BA…; D. Ar…
- **Appellants:** Seemant N…
- **Respondents:** Divyaswarna (OPC)…; Ankur V…
- **Advocates:** Urmila Chak…; Pallavi…; +3 more

## Timeline

- **2020-02-01 — Receipt of Dema…**: Demand notice was received…
- **2020-03-18 — Filing of App…**: Application filed before…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 66 — Fraudulent trading or wrongful trading](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-66)

---

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/divyaswarna-opc-private-limited-b1892ad7