Newspaper,Date,Language,Edition
Financial,09.02.2020,English,Chandigarh
Express,,,
Jansatta,09.02.2020,Hindi,Chandigarh
Hari Bhoomi,09.02.2020,Hindi,Rohtak
i.e. during the period of moratorium. Therefore, the above mentioned order passed by the applicant is in violation of Section 14(1)(a). The same is",,,
extracted here in below:,,,
(1) Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for",,,
prohibiting all of the following, namely:â€"",,,
(a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any",,,
court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority;",,,
7. Thus, we hold that the publication made by the respondent is in compliance with the relevant Regulation and that the enforcement for paying the",,,
demand during the moratorium period, is in violation of section 14(1)(a) of the IBC.",,,
8. In view of the above discussion, the present application is dismissed without order as to cost and disposed of accordingly.",,,
IA No. 837/2020,,,
1. The present application is filed by Resolution Professional to quash and set aside the order dated 18.11.2020 whereby, the property of the corporate",,,
debtor bearing property ID-193C6U1 situated near DAV School, Sector 27, Rohtak has been attached and sealed by the respondent. Whereas, the",,,
CP (IB) No. 515/Chd/Chd/2019 has been admitted by this Adjudicating Authority on 07.02.2020 filed under Section 7 of the Code on behalf of the,,,
Financial Creditor, Parivartan Investment and Finance Company seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRPâ€).",,,
2. The brief facts of the present application stated by the applicant-Resolution Professional are herein below:,,,
2.1 It is submitted that the moratorium under Section 14 was declared on 07.02.2020. The Resolution Professional made public announcement on,,,
09.02.2020 under Regulation 6(1) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations,",,,
2016 in “Financial Express†(English) Chandigarh Edition, “Hari Bhoomi†(Hindi), Chandigarh Edition.",,,
2.2 It is further submitted that the CoC in its 9th meeting dated 31.10.2020 approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Abhimanyu Singh,,,
Mehlawat (“SRAâ€) with 100% voting share and the Resolution Professional has filed an application under Section 30(6) of the Code seeking,,,
approval of the Resolution Plan.,,,
2.3 It is stated that respondent vide order dated 18.11.2020 passed under Section 130 of Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 attaching the",,,
above said property on the ground that corporate debtor has failed to pay the property tax and fire tax amounting to Rs. 19,94,039/- and directed the",,,
corporate debtor to pay the said taxes by 23.11.2020, failing which the property will be sold in terms of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994.",,,
2.4 It is averred that applicant-Resolution Professional prima facie did not observe any dues of the respondent in books of account of the corporate,,,
debtor as a result the applicant did not issue any specific communication regarding the CIRP to the respondent. No claim has been filed by the,,,
respondent till date.,,,
3. The respondent has filed its reply vide Diary No. 01883/03 dated 08.02.2022 and also filed written submissions, whereby the respondent has",,,
reiterated the submissions made above in IA No. 93/2022.,,,
4. The applicant-Resolution Professional has filed its rejoinder and written submissions, wherein the averments made by the respondents are denied",,,
and the Resolution Professional has reiterated the submissions made above and in IA No. 93/2022.,,,
5. To buttress his contentions the Resolution Professional has placed reliance on the decision passed by Hon’ble NCLAT in Indian Overseas,,,
Bank Vs. Mr. Dinkar T. Venkatsubramaniam Resolution Professional for Amtek Auto Ltd. [Com Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 267 of 2017]:,,,
5. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant, we do not accept the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant in view of the fact that after the admission",,,
of an application under Section 7 of the 'T&B Code', once moratorium has been declared it is not open to any person including 'Financial Creditors' and the",,,
appellant bank to recover any amount from the account of the 'Corporate Debtor, nor it can appropriate any amount towards its own dues.",,,
6. If the 'Corporate Debtor' has borrowed some amount from the Appellant-Indian Overseas Bank' and the Appellant- Indian Overseas Bank' come within the,,,
definition of 'Financial Creditor as defined in Section 5(7) of the 'T&B Code', it is always open to the Appellant- ""Indian Overseas Bank' to file its claim before",,,
the 'Interim Resolution Professional' for getting the amount back. If the Appellant claims to be 'Financial Creditor' and file's such claim before the 'Interim,,,
Resolution Professional' showing the principal amount and interest thereon, the 'Interim Resolution Professional will consider the same and the Appellant being",,,
'Financial Creditor' may be taken in the Committee of Creditors',,,
7. We find no merit in this appeal, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 13th October, 2017 . However, liberty is given to the",,,
Appellant-Indian Overseas Bank' to raise its claim before the interim Resolution Professional' and request him to allow it to be a member of the Creditors,,,
Committee which should be considered in accordance with lawâ€,,,
6. It is observed that in the case of State Bank of India v. Debashish Nanda, Company Appeal (AT) ( Insolvency) No. 49 of 2018, the Hon’ble",,,
NCLAT has referred abovementioned Indian Overseas Bank case.,,,
7. The relevant provisions i.e. Section 14 of IBC which deals with the moratorium is extracted here in below:,,,
(1) Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for",,,
prohibiting all of the following, namely:â€"",,,
(a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any",,,
court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority;",,,
(b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;",,,
(c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the",,,
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002;",,,
(d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor. XXXXXXXX,,,
8. In view of the above, we come to the conclusion there is direct violation of Section 14(1)(b) which creates a bar prohibiting encumbering, alienating",,,
or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein. Besides, there is violation of the order of",,,
moratorium passed by this Adjudicating Authority on 07.02.2022.,,,
9. In the above mentioned circumstances, the present application i.e. IA No. 837/2020 is allowed accordingly and the impugned notice dated",,,
18.11.2020 issued by the respondent is set aside.,,,
