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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
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