Fortune Gilts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. - Proceedings for preferential transaction could have been proceeded only against the creditors and the Appellant being not a creditor of the Corporate Debtor, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have been deleted the name of the Appellant from I.A. No.2524 of 2020.

 NCLAT (2024.03.28) in Fortune Gilts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 414 of 2024] held that;

• Proceedings for preferential transaction could have been proceeded only against the creditors and the Appellant being not a creditor of the Corporate Debtor, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have been deleted the name of the Appellant from I.A. No.2524 of 2020.

Excerpts of the order;

28.03.2024: Heard Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned senior counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. This Appeal has been filed against order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 04.01.2024 by which I.A. No.3120 of 2023 filed by the Appellant has been rejected.

# 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant was not a creditor of the Corporate Debtor which is essential condition for holding any transaction as preferential transaction under Section 43. It is submitted that the Appellant was not a creditor and his name ought not to have been impleaded in I.A. No.2524 of 2020, which was avoidance application.

# 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent does not dispute the submission that Appellant is not a creditor. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that as per para 5.24 of I.A. No.2524 of 2020, the Appellant was not a creditor of the Corporate Debtor. Proceedings for preferential transaction could have been proceeded only against the creditors and the Appellant being not a creditor of the Corporate Debtor, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have been deleted the name of the Appellant from I.A. No.2524 of 2020. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that there are other Respondents to the I.A. against whom the application has to be proceeded with and decided.

# 4. We make it clear that we are only concerned in present case with regard to Appellant’s name, who is party respondent in I.A. No.2524 of 2020. In view of the submissions of counsel for the parties, as noticed above, we are of the view that I.A. No.3120 of 2023 deserve to be allowed and name of the Appellant be deleted from I.A. No.2524 of 2020. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

----------------------------------------------