9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 264 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of petition - Delay in paying interest to the Bank - Section 13 (2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 - HELD THAT - This writ petition is liable to be rejected for more than one reason. Firstly the petition is not maintainable as it has been filed by the petitioner-Company represented by its erstwhile Director; secondly petitioner has given false assurance with regard to settlement before the NCLT and this Court on several dates of hearing and thirdly the impugned order is an appealable order. In PRESTIGE LIGHTS LTD. VERSUS STATE BANK OF INDIA 2007 (8) TMI 446 - SUPREME COURT it is held that an order passed by competent court -interim or final - has to be obeyed without any reservation. If such order is disobeyed court may refuse the party violating such order to hear him on merits. In that case the order of the Court was not complied with by the petitioner therein. In this case petitioner has given repeated assurances but not fulfilled them. The petitioner is not entitled for the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - petition dismissed.
Issues involved:
Petition seeking to quash an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal and to file objections, alternative remedy, maintainability of the petition by an erstwhile Director, petitioner's conduct before NCLT and the Court, jurisdictional issue of time-barred debt, appointment of Interim Resolution Professional, repeated adjournments, bonafides of the petitioner, compliance with court orders, discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Detailed Analysis: 1. Petition to Quash NCLT Order and File Objections: The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and to file its statement of objections. The petitioner had availed a loan from a bank, leading to insolvency proceedings initiated by the respondent. The NCLT appointed an Interim Resolution Professional, prompting the petitioner to challenge the order before the High Court. 2. Alternative Remedy and Jurisdictional Issue: The petitioner contended that the debt was time-barred at the time of the application under the Bankruptcy Code. The issue of alternative remedy was raised, citing relevant case laws to support the argument. The petitioner emphasized that the debt being time-barred affected the maintainability of the NCLT application. 3. Maintainability and Conduct of the Petitioner: The respondent argued against the maintainability of the petition by an erstwhile Director of the company. The conduct of the petitioner before the NCLT and the High Court was scrutinized, highlighting repeated adjournments and failure to fulfill assurances of settlement. The court assessed the conduct of the petitioner in light of the proceedings before the NCLT and the High Court. 4. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional: The NCLT's decision to appoint an Interim Resolution Professional was a key aspect of the case. The petitioner's objections to this appointment and the subsequent legal challenges formed a significant part of the argument presented before the High Court. 5. Compliance with Court Orders and Discretionary Relief: The court evaluated the petitioner's compliance with court orders and its conduct throughout the proceedings. Emphasis was placed on the importance of fulfilling assurances made before the NCLT and the High Court. The court considered the petitioner's repeated adjournments and failure to deposit any amount as ordered by the court. 6. Final Judgment and Dismissal of the Petition: After considering all arguments and the conduct of the parties involved, the court dismissed the petition with costs. The court cited relevant case laws to support its decision, emphasizing the importance of compliance with court orders and the lack of entitlement to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India based on the petitioner's conduct. This detailed analysis covers the various issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the court's decision.
|
