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

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