9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 700 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyAttachment of property of Corporate Debtor - Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 - HELD THAT - The assets of the Corporate Debtor have been wrongly attached vide MPID order dated 01.02.2012. The MPID order sought to attach the properties of Dhanlaxmi cooperative society and the name of the Corporate Debtor is not notified in the MPID notification, but the properties of the Corporate Debtor have been attached and sealed. Further due to illegal attachment of properties, the resolution professional could not take control of the said properties, appoint valuer etc. to perform his duties under the I B code. The order of attachment under the notification dated 01.02.2012 under the MPID Act to the extent of property Shop No. 21, Ground Floor, Bonanza Arcade, Amboli, S. V. Road, Andheri West, Mumbai-400058 is set aside. Application allowed.
Issues:
1. Application seeking setting aside of MPID notification and release of sealed assets. 2. Dispute regarding attachment of Corporate Debtor's properties under MPID Act. 3. Conflict between MPID Act and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Issue 1: Application seeking setting aside of MPID notification and release of sealed assets The Resolution Professional filed an Application under Sections 14, 18, and 23 of the IB Code requesting the Tribunal to set aside the MPID notification and direct the release of sealed assets of the Corporate Debtor. The properties in question were wrongly attached under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 by the Government of Maharashtra. The Applicant argued that the Corporate Debtor's properties were erroneously sealed as the MPID notification did not include the Corporate Debtor's name. Despite the Applicant's request for release, the Respondents did not respond or release the attachment order. Issue 2: Dispute regarding attachment of Corporate Debtor's properties under MPID Act The MPID notification dated 01.02.2012 attached the Corporate Debtor's property, listing specific shops and a plot. However, the Applicant contended that the properties were attached wrongly as the MPID notification was intended for a different financial establishment and its officers, not the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant provided evidence of the attachment orders and final reports by the Mumbai Police. The Applicant also highlighted the legal separation between a company and its directors, emphasizing that the properties of the Corporate Debtor should not have been sealed under the MPID Act. Issue 3: Conflict between MPID Act and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) The Counsel for the Applicant relied on a judgment from the Principal Bench, New Delhi, emphasizing the conflict between the MPID Act and the IBC. The judgment clarified that the IBC, being a parliamentary statute, prevails over state laws like the MPID Act. It cited Article 254 of the Constitution of India, which addresses the repugnancy between parliamentary and state laws. The judgment highlighted that the IBC is a comprehensive code for insolvency matters and overrides conflicting state laws. Section 238 of the IBC was invoked to establish the overriding effect of the Code. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the MPID Act could not obstruct the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the IBC, setting aside the attachment order and allowing the Applicant's request for possession of the sealed properties. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Application, setting aside the MPID notification and directing the release of the Corporate Debtor's sealed assets. The judgment clarified the legal principles governing conflicts between state and parliamentary laws, emphasizing the supremacy of the IBC in insolvency matters. The resolution professional was granted the authority to take control of the properties and fulfill duties under the IBC without hindrance from the illegal attachment of assets.
|
