9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 1453 - HC - Indian LawsChallenge to order/s refusing to stay the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - applicant submitted that in view of the commencement of interim moratorium in terms of Section 96 of IBC, the proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act shall be deemed to have been stayed - HELD THAT - The contention of learned Advocate for the respondent-NSEL that NSEL is not a party to the proceedings, will be of no consequence. Admittedly, the SBI has filed a petition before National Company Law Board against the applicant herein to initiate Insolvency Resolution Process. It is necessary to have a glance at the relevant provisions of IBC. Chapter III of IBC speaks of Insolvency Resolution Process. Section 94 thereof pertains to the application by debtor to initiate the Insolvency Resolution Process. Under Section 95 of IBC, a creditor may move an application to initiate the Insolvency Resolution Process. The adjudicating authority is expected to pass an order either allowing or rejecting the application under Section 94 or under Section 95, as the case may be. If the application is admitted under section 100 of IBC, moratorium shall commence in relation to all the debts and shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of 180 days beginning with the date of admission of the application or on the date, the Adjudication Authority passes an order on the repayment plan under Section 114 of IBC, whichever is earlier. Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act speaks of a final judgment, order or decree of a Competent Court, in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction, operates as a judgment in rem - On going through the scheme of Insolvency Resolution Process contained in Chapter III of IBC, the contention of learned Advocate for respondent-NSEL that proceeding under Section 95 of IBC and outcome thereof is a party specific (parties to the said proceeding only), can not be accepted. Conclusion - i) The interim moratorium under IBC applies broadly to any debt-related legal proceedings, including those under the NI Act, irrespective of whether the creditor is a party to the insolvency proceedings. ii) The proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act should be stayed during the interim moratorium period as per Section 96 of the IBC, thereby the applications for stay allowed. Criminal Application are allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The judgment primarily revolves around the following legal issues:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Whether the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act should be stayed due to the interim moratorium under Section 96 of IBC. - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework involves Section 138 of the NI Act, which deals with the dishonor of cheques, and Section 96 of the IBC, which provides for an interim moratorium on debts upon the filing of an insolvency application. Precedents include the Supreme Court's judgments in P. Mohanraj and Others v. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited and State Bank of India v. V. Ramakrishnan. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court interpreted Section 96 of IBC as providing a stay on any legal proceedings related to debts once an insolvency application is filed. The court emphasized that the language of Section 96 is broad, covering proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. - Key evidence and findings: The court found that the applicant was involved in insolvency proceedings initiated by the State Bank of India, which triggered the interim moratorium under Section 96 of IBC. - Application of law to facts: The court applied the interim moratorium provisions to the Section 138 proceedings, concluding that these proceedings are indeed related to "any debt" as per Section 96 of IBC. - Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent argued that the moratorium should not apply since they were not a party to the insolvency proceedings. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the moratorium applies broadly to any debt-related proceedings. - Conclusions: The court concluded that the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act should be stayed during the interim moratorium period as per Section 96 of the IBC. Issue 2: Applicability of interim moratorium under Section 96 of IBC to proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court relied on the judgment in P. Mohanraj and Others v. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited, which clarified the scope of moratoriums under the IBC. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court reasoned that the moratorium under Section 96 of IBC is not limited to the parties involved in the insolvency application but extends to any proceedings related to debts. - Key evidence and findings: The court noted that the insolvency proceedings against the applicant triggered the interim moratorium, which should apply to the Section 138 proceedings. - Application of law to facts: The court applied the broad interpretation of "any debt" to include the liabilities under the dishonored cheques, thereby staying the proceedings. - Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's argument of non-applicability due to non-participation in the insolvency proceedings was dismissed, as the court focused on the nature of the debt rather than the parties involved. - Conclusions: The court held that the interim moratorium under Section 96 of IBC applies to the Section 138 proceedings, warranting a stay. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The court quoted, "The proceedings under Section 138 read with 141 of NI Act get covered by the term 'any legal action or proceeding pending in respect of any debt' appearing in Section 96(1) of IBC." - Core principles established: The judgment establishes that the interim moratorium under IBC applies broadly to any debt-related legal proceedings, including those under the NI Act, irrespective of whether the creditor is a party to the insolvency proceedings. - Final determinations on each issue: The court determined that the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act should be stayed during the interim moratorium period as per Section 96 of the IBC, thereby allowing the applications for stay.
|
