Skip to main content

Pendency Of Proceedings Before DRT Other Forum Not A Bar For Initiating CIRP

Citation : Mr.AmarVora vs CityUnionBankLtd., Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 130 of 2022

Date of Judgment/Order : 11/05/2022

Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench

Corum : Justice M. Venugopal] Member (Judicial), Kanthi Narahari, Member (Technical)

Background

Appeal was filed against the order of the NCLT, Chennai admitting a application under Section 7 of the Insolvency Code. Among the various objections raised by the Appellant was that earlier issued a demand notice to the Appellant under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI ACT, 2002 followed by paper publication dated 27.09.2018. The authorised officer took symbolic possession of the property mortgaged as per Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI ACT, 2002. Thereafter, the subject property was attached with DRT Madurai Bench. Also the Appellants have asked the court to keep the attachment and operation of DRT in abeyance till decision is reached in a matter pending under Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988.


Judgment

The question before the NCLAT was whether the pendency of proceedings under SARFAESI ACT, DRT and before PBPT, prohibits the Respondent/financial Creditor for initiation of Proceedings under IBC, 2016?

The NCLAT observed that The IBC, 2016 is a special enactment and is an act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individual in a time bound manner for maximisation of value of assets of such persons, to promote entrepreneurship. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the aim and object of the Code is not for recovery of debts but for Resolution of Corporate Persons. In this regard Section 238 of I & B Code, 2016 deal with provisions of the Code to override other laws. In view of the above provision of law the financial Creditor/ Operational Creditor/Corporate Persons can file an application under Section 7 ,9 & 10 of the I & B Code, 2016 before the respective Adjudicating Authorities even though in respect of same any proceeding pending before other forums on the ground that the provisions of I & B Code, 2016 is overriding effect of other laws. In view of the aforesaid reasons the Appellant cannot take a stand that the proceedings are pending before DRT and PBPT and the application under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016 cannot be maintained does not merit. The application under Section 7 filed by the financial Creditor before the Adjudicating Authority is very well maintained.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
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