BEFORE THE HON’BLE
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH
IA No. (IBC) 711/KB/2025
in
CP (IB) No. 2137/KB/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Samskar Financial Services Private Limited … Financial Creditor
Versus
Roofers Infrastructure India Private
Limited … Corporate Debtor
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
Tapan Chakraborty … Resolution Professional / Applicant
Versus
- Hirak
Nath Sounth … Respondent No. 1
- Jayanti
Sounth … Respondent No. 2
OBJECTIONS
AND ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 2
I, Jayanti Sounth, wife of Sri Hirak
Nath Sounth, aged about 43 years, by faith Hindu, by Occupation House Wife, residing
at Diamond Towert, Jhapetapur, Kharagpur, Midnapur West, Pin – 721301,
presently Suspended Director of Roofers Infrastructure India Private Limited,
holding Director Identification Number (DIN) 01642127, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as follows:
- I
am the Respondent No. 2 in the present application and being conversant
with the facts and circumstances of the case, I am competent to swear this
affidavit in reply.
- I
deny and dispute all allegations, statements, submissions and averments
made by the Applicant in the application under Section 19(2) of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), save and except what are
specifically admitted herein.
3. At the very outset, the present
application under Section 19(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
(“IBC”) is wholly misconceived, malicious,
and unsustainable in law. The Applicant/Resolution Professional
(“RP”) has invoked the coercive powers of this Hon’ble Tribunal without any
factual foundation or supporting material, merely to cover up his own failure
to conduct the CIRP effectively. The application deserves to be dismissed in
limine.
4. The Respondent, a housewife and
nominal/suspended director, had no operational or managerial role in the
company. Since the financial year 2011-12, the
Corporate Debtor has been completely non-functional, with no
operations, staff, or books of account available. In such circumstances, the
allegation that she has “withheld information or documents” is inherently
baseless. One cannot be compelled to produce documents that do not exist or are
not in one’s possession.
5. The affairs of M/s Roofers
Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. and other associated concerns are already under the supervision of the One-Man Committee headed by Hon’ble
Justice Sailendra Prasad Talukdar (Retd.), constituted by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta by order dated
14.09.2017 in W.P. No. 24057 (W) of 2015. The Committee took charge of all
affairs and properties of the “Roofers Group.” Hence, any demand for independent handing-over of documents or assets by the
Respondent is legally impermissible, since the Hon’ble High
Court has retained control.
6. A winding-up case—C.P. No. 306 (KB) of 2021—filed by the Registrar of
Companies, West Bengal, is already pending before Hon’ble Bench-II, NCLT
Kolkata. This Tribunal has taken judicial notice that the Corporate Debtor is a
defunct entity. Once a winding-up process is initiated, parallel coercive directions under Section 19(2) are
unwarranted and contrary to the settled principle that two insolvency processes
cannot run concurrently for the same company.
7. Multiple criminal and recovery proceedings exist.
The Respondent draws attention to CBI FIR No. RC-9/E/17-EOIV-Kol.
dated 25.05.2017 under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 IPC and O.A. No. 415 of 2015 before DRT-I, Kolkata, along with related criminal
proceedings. In these matters, all relevant company records, if any, have
already been seized or placed before investigating agencies. Thus, the Respondent is incapable of producing records already in official
custody.
8. Rebuttal to the RP’s Rejoinder – False, Vague and Unsupported Allegations.
(a) The RP’s rejoinder merely repeats bald allegations without any specific
instance of non-compliance. No correspondence, email, or notice demonstrating a
request for cooperation followed by refusal has been annexed.
(b) The RP has not shown any
contemporaneous communication wherein the Respondent was called upon to furnish
specific data and failed to respond. In absence of documentary proof
of such requisition and default, the entire allegation collapses.
(c) It is also noteworthy that the RP has failed to approach the One-Man
Committee or the Official Liquidator to access records, thereby revealing his
own lack of diligence.
9. Legal Position – Section 19(2) is coercive in nature and must be invoked
sparingly, an
application under Section 19(2) cannot be entertained unless (i) specific acts
of non-cooperation are proved, (ii) the RP has first issued formal
requisitions, and (iii) the respondent is in possession of the information
sought. None of these ingredients are satisfied here.
10.
Respondent’s bona fide and
helpless position.
The Respondent reiterates that she does not possess any books of account,
registers, or digital data of the company. The company never maintained a
registered office post-2012, and all assets were either seized by investigating
authorities or are under the control of the Hon’ble High Court Committee.
Therefore, any direction compelling her to “cooperate” beyond her capacity
would be impossible to comply with and contrary to the principle lex non cogit ad impossibilia—the
law does not compel the impossible.
11.
RP’s conduct contrary to natural
justice and fairness.
Instead of verifying facts from official sources or the Committee, the RP has
hurriedly filed this application to create an impression of diligence. Such
conduct is inconsistent with the fiduciary duties of a Resolution Professional
under Sections 208 and 233 of the IBC. The RP’s attempt to shift blame upon
suspended directors for his procedural failure must be deprecated.
In light of the foregoing facts and legal position, it is humbly submitted
that;
(i) The application under Section
19(2) be dismissed with exemplary costs,
being devoid of merit;
(ii) This Hon’ble Tribunal be
pleased to record that the Respondent has
fully cooperated to the extent possible and that no document,
record, or property remains in her possession;
(iii)
The
Hon’ble Tribunal may further direct the RP to obtain records, if any, from the
High Court-appointed Committee or the Official Liquidator; and
(iv) Pass such further orders as may
be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
And
for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
VERIFICATION
I, Jayanti Sounth,
the deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of the above
affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief, no part of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Verified
at Kolkata on this ___ day of ______, 2025.
DEPONENT
Identified
by me;
Advocate
Prepared
in my Chamber;
Advocate
Date
: _________November’ 2025
Place
: Kolkata
N O T A R Y
No comments:
Post a Comment