IBC Section 66 Overlooked by the DHFL-CoC: A Big Conspiracy?

IBC Section 66 Overlooked by the DHFL-CoC: A Big Conspiracy?

Posted on 23/04/2023 (GMT 11:40 hrs)

We think that the following texts speak for themselves. Hope is still not out of the Pandora’s Box for the DHFL Victims:

I. 63 MOONS, NCLAT AND THE SECTION 66 OF THE IBC

In the 63 Moons Technologies Case on the DHFL issue⤡, it stated the following:

For more information, view the following links/documents:

NCLAT asks CoC to consider 63 moons’ plea in DHFL Resolution Plan VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 27th January, 2022 ©Business Standard)

NCLAT asks DHFL lenders to reconsider resolution plan on avoidable transactions valuation aspect VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 27th January, 2022 ©The Economic Times)

63-moons-wins-in-nclat-against-piramal-on-dhfl-resolutions-planDownload

The following provision of the Section 66 (1) of the IBC has to be highlighted in this regard:

The above provision’s explanation is given as follows:

a-note-of-fraudulent-and-unlawful-tradingDownload

In response to this 63 Moons’ case, the NCLAT on 27/01/2022 ruled that there are material irregularities, illegalities and void spaces in the DHFL resolution process. Here are some excerpts from the same:

Since it is clear from 63 Moons’ and NCLAT’s enunciations, that the CoC acted with malicious intent to deprive the small depositors in favour of Piramal’s allegedly unjust Resolution Plan, it can be appealed that:

It is no wonder that the Parliamentary Standing Committee questioned the CoC’s Conduct:

Standing Committee on Finance raps IBC over unsustainable haircuts, says 13,000 cases worth Rs 9 lakh crore pending VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on August 03 2021, ©Moneycontrol)

II. THE RIGHTS OF THE OLD PROMOTERS/SUSPENDED DIRECTORS

With regard to the rights of the old promoters of DHFL, viz., the Wadhawan brothers, the Article 32A of the IBC can be considered:

“…the liability of a corporate debtor for an offence committed prior to the commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process shall cease, and the corporate debtor shall not be prosecuted for such an offence from the date the resolution plan has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority under section 31…”

Hence, the so-called “criminal offences” (yet to be proved) of the Wadhawan brothers relating to fund diversion by creating fraudulent accounts do hold no water.

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the allegations made by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and upheld the default bail granted to DHFL’s ex-promoters Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan by the Bombay High Court in the Yes Bank-DHFL Money Laundering case. No criminal charges against the Wadhawan brothers have been proved conclusively yet. This has a direct binding on the future outcome of the DHFL case.
Yes Bank-DHFL scam: Supreme Court upholds default bail granted to Kapil, Dheeraj Wadhawan VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 27th March, 2023 ©Economic Times)

It must also be kept in mind that Bankruptcy will not void personal guarantees: Supreme Court VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on May 22, 2021 ©The Times of India).

[We are expecting readers’ responses on this complicated issue]