Skip to main content

Insolvency proceedings cannot be used to defeat a claim existing prior to the initiation of insolvency proceedings

In A.P. No.550 of 2008, Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. I.K. Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as I.K. Merchants), the question before the Calcutta High Court was whether the present application
under Section 34 of the Act should be kept in abeyance by reason of the provision of the IBC being invoked by operational creditors against the petitioner.

The petitioner contended before the Court that the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside of the award cannot be proceeded with since Corporate Insolvency proceedings under the IBC has already been initiated against him as the ‘Corporate Debtor’.

It was further submitted by the petitioner that since the management of the petitioner/corporate debtor has already been taken over by JK Paper Limited (the resolution applicant before the NCLT) and the respondents have also not made any efforts to place their claim before the Resolution Professional (“RP”), the said application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act cannot be proceeded with against the petitioner.

Thus, it was the contention of the petitioner before the Court that the respondent must first file its claim before the NCLT before it can contest the proceedings for setting aside of the award.

Disagreeing with the contention of the petitioner and relying on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Kishan Vs. Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 17 SCC 622 and Mobilox, the Calcutta High Court eventually decided that it is evident that the view of the Supreme Court was that the IBC cannot be used in terrorem to extract a sum of money when that sum is a subject-matter of a pending adjudication.

While the Court noted that the case of K. Kishan was different from the instant case in certain factual aspects, the intention underlying the Supreme Court’s judgment was found relevant i.e. that the corporate insolvency proceedings cannot be used in cases where there is a pre-existing and an ongoing dispute between the parties.

In view of the same, the High Court proceeded to hold that corporate insolvency resolution proceedings cannot be used to defeat a claim or a dispute which existed prior to the initiation of the insolvency proceeding. Both K. Kishan and Mobliox make it clear an earlier dispute or notice of a suit or an arbitration must be given precedence to the insolvency proceedings.

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