Skip to main content

NCLT Has Inherent Power To Impose Moratorium Before Initiation Of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 664 of 2019,  IN THE MATTER OF NUI Pulp and Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Roxcel Trading GMBH, an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency Code was filed by the respondent against which the Corporate Debtor had filed a caveat. The Corporate Debtor also claimed the existence of a dispute and the Adjudicating Authority allowed time to file affidavit by the Corporate Debtor and rejoinder by the respondent. However at that stage, the respondent having expressed apprehension of the Corporate Debtor intending to sell the assets of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ to defeat the purpose of the ‘I&B Code’ and cause wrongful losses to all the creditors including the ‘Operational Creditor’, passed an interim order under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, restraining the Corporate Debtor and its Directors from alienating, encumbering or creating any third party interest on the assets of the 1st Respondent Company till further orders. Against that order the Corporate Debtor  filed this appeal.

The Corporate Debtor argued that before admission of an application under Sections 7 or 9, the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to restrain the ‘Corporate Debtor’ and its Directors from alienating, encumbering or creating any third party interest on the assets of the ‘Corporate Debtor’. No such power can be exercised under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. According to the Corporate Debtor, inherent power can be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), if it comes to the notice on receipt of reply that the ‘Corporate Debtor’ somehow or other trying to get adjournment or to alienate the matter after filing of the application under Sections 7 or 9. No such ground having shown by the ‘Operational Creditor’ on the first day of issuance of notice or allowing the ‘Corporate Debtor’ to file reply. The Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to pass interim order.

The Ld. NCLAT observed that against the apprehension of the Operational Creditor that the Corporate Debtor might if not restrained sale assets to defeat the purpose of the Insolvency application, the Corporate Debtor could give any such undertaking as according to them it will act taking into consideration the necessity of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ for its day-to-day functioning.

The Ld. NCLAT decided that Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 which deals with ‘inherent powers’ of the National Company Law Tribunal, makes it clear that once an application under Sections 7 or 9 is filed by the Adjudicating Authority, it is not necessary for the Adjudicating Authority to await hearing of the parties for passing order of ‘Moratorium’ under Section 14 of the ‘I&B Code’. To ensure that one or other party may not abuse the process of the Tribunal or for meeting the ends of justice, it is always open to the Tribunal to pass appropriate interim order.



Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more