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

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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more