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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more