Authority: National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-I (Shri Prabhat Kumar, Hon'ble Member (Technical) & Shri Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey, Hon'ble Member (Judicial))

Order Date: 12 October 2026

Case Overview

The Interlocutory Application (IA) No. 233 of 2026 in CP (IB) No. 922 of 2024 was filed by Mr. CA Kshitiz Gupta, the erstwhile Resolution Professional (RP) of Viztar International Private Limited (Corporate Debtor). The application was filed under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), seeking declarations that eight specific transactions were either fraudulent or preferential and directing the respondents to contribute a total of Rs. 10.85 Crores to the assets of the Corporate Debtor.

The Corporate Debtor, involved in BPO, Call Centre, Drone Cinematics, and Event Management, was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 20.02.2025. Mr. CA Kshitiz Gupta was appointed as the RP and later engaged a transactional auditor, Pradeep Patankar & Co., Chartered Accountants, who submitted a final report on 07.01.2026. The Corporate Debtor subsequently entered liquidation, and Mr. Prabhat Jain was appointed as the Liquidator.

The respondents were Mr. Chaitanya Rajnish Savant (Respondent No. 1), a former director; Mr. Ranajeet Chauhan (Respondent No. 2), a Whole Time Director from 18.02.2012 to 15.01.2024; Vibha Tiwari (Respondent No. 3); and another individual (Respondent No. 4). Respondents No. 1 and 3 challenged the application, with Respondent No. 1 arguing his impleadment was misconceived as he had resigned via email on 24.05.2022, effective 31.05.2022.

The Tribunal examined each of the eight impugned transactions in detail, applying the legal principles from NCLAT judgments in Aditya Kumar Tibrewal (RP) v. Om Prakash Pandey and Ors. and Renuka Devi Rangaswamy vs Mr. Madhusudan Khemka, which outline the necessary ingredients for establishing a case under Section 66 of the Code.

The principal allegations concerned:

1. Fraudulent Transaction 1 (Rs. 1.52 Cr): Write-off of trade receivables/bad debts in FY 2023-24.

2. Fraudulent Transaction 2 (Rs. 2.85 Cr): Adjustment of TDS and salary payable receivables against alleged salary payables.

3. Fraudulent Transaction 3: Non-disclosure and misclassification of an HDFC Bank account and unreconciled transactions in FY 2022-23 & 2023-24.

4. Preferential Transaction 4 (Rs. 52.28 Lakhs): Payments to subsidiary Viztar Business Solutions Pvt Ltd (VBSPL).

5. Preferential Transaction 5 (Rs. 15.24 Lakhs): Payments to sundry creditors like Netcore Solutions, Tirth Infotech, etc., without reasonable justification.

6. Fraudulent Transaction 6 (Rs. 2.48 Cr): Misclassification of sundry debtors under "Opening Balance Difference".

7. Fraudulent Transaction 7 (Rs. 54.40 Lakhs): Transfers to related parties (Tejaswini Adhikari, Monishka Adhikari, Sachin Adhikari, VBSPL) not recorded in books.

8. Fraudulent Transaction 8 (Rs. 10 Lakhs): Cash in hand recorded in books but not physically handed over to the RP.

The Tribunal found that for Transactions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8, the Applicant failed to establish the essential ingredients of fraudulent or wrongful trading. The discrepancies were primarily related to accounting and recording issues, and in the absence of material showing fraudulent intent or asset diversion, they were insufficient to attract Section 66. For Transaction 4 (payments to VBSPL), the Management's explanation that these were for a shared service centre was accepted, and the allegation was not established.

However, for Transaction 7, concerning transfers totaling Rs. 54.40 Lakhs made on 10.10.2022 and 15.02.2025 to related parties, the Tribunal found the respondents' justifications (reimbursement for business expenses, consultancy, travel) unsupported by any documentary evidence like invoices or agreements. Noting that the Corporate Debtor's financial position had deteriorated since a default in October 2021, the Tribunal held that the persons responsible were required to exercise due diligence to minimise potential loss to creditors. The payment of Rs. 2.60 Lakhs to VBSPL on 15.02.2025 (during CIRP) was excluded from this finding. Consequently, the payments of Rs. 51.80 Lakhs made on 10.10.2022 were found to fall under Section 66(2) for wrongful trading.

Final Outcome

The application was partly allowed. The Tribunal dismissed the pleas pertaining to Transactions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8. For Transaction 7, it was upheld only concerning the Rs. 51.80 Lakhs transferred on 10.10.2022. As Respondent No. 1 had resigned before this date and Respondents No. 3 & 4 were appointed after, the order was passed only against Respondent No. 2, Mr. Ranajeet Chauhan. He was directed to contribute Rs. 51,80,000/- to the assets of the Corporate Debtor within 30 days, failing which the amount would be recoverable with interest at 12% per annum on the outstanding balance.

Topics: Insolvency Avoidance Transactions, Wrongful Trading, NCLT Adjudication