National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Mr. Chaitanya Madala VS Dr. Kondapalli Venkat Srinivas Liquidator of Saibhaskar Irons Limited on 3 November 2026
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.545/2026 Page 1 of 2
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AT CHENNAI
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.545/2026
IA Nos. 1525, 1526, 1527 & 1528/2026
In the matter of:
Chaitanya Madala
Suspended Director of Saibhaskar Irons Ltd & Anr. … Appellants
Vs
Dr. Kondapalli Venkat Srinivas,
Liquidator of Saibhaskar Irons Ltd ...Respondent Present :
For Appellant
: Mr. Amir Bavani, Advocate
For Respondent
: Mr. MM Viswaraj, Advocate for Liquidator
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
03.11.2026: This appeal is preferred challenging an order under Section 43 IBC. The contention of the appellant is that appellant, though a related party to the corporate debtor, has advanced certain unsecured loan, utilizing which the corporate debtor has cleared its debt dues to atleast three banks. And this loan was dated prior to the CIRP commencement date. So far as financial transaction now in question is concerned, learned counsel submits that, vis-à-vis an intended sale of piece of land by the corporate debtor, it has received certain money, but eventually the transaction failed, and the money has to be repaid to the intended
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.545/2026 Page 2 of 2
purchaser. This money has come into the accounts of the corporate debtor immediately after the commencement of CIRP but before IRP took charge of the affairs of the corporate debtor. The appellant merely withdrew the money to pay the intended purchaser. He submits that the land is still with the company, and added that the company cannot have both the land and money. This apart the alleged transactions does not fall within the four corners of Section 43 IBC.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent/liquidator Mr. MM Viswaraj, enters appearance. The learned counsel submits that the said property is sold to the intended purchaser and he can provide the details. The respondent/liquidator is now required to furnish and substantiate the statement he has made through an affidavit with supporting documents.
3. On weighing the rival submissions made today, there shall be an order of stay of the impugned order, but subject to the appellant depositing 50% of amount involved in Section 43 proceedings by 30.11.2026 to the credit of this appeal. List the matter on 01.12.2026. [Justice N. Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)
[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical)
SN/AA/MS/AK