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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more