9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 995 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking stay of Certificate Case proceedings initiated under section 33(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - moratorium ongoing - compliance with the workmen's demand - HELD THAT - It is trite law that the Moratorium under section 14(1) will apply to all proceedings of whatsoever nature pending before any Court, Tribunal or Authority. The only exception to the Moratorium is the writ jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court - It is also apposite to mention here that in terms of section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 the provisions of the Code shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being enforced. This is a fit case to restrain the Respondent No. 2 from proceeding any further with the Certificate Case, until the moratorium in terms of section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ends - this order shall be brought to the notice of the Respondent No. 2 by the applicant/RP on the next date of hearing, i.e. 13.04.2021 - List this matter on 20/05/2021.
Issues:
1. Application for stay of Certificate Case proceedings under section 33(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Violation of Moratorium under section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. 3. Opposing grant of interim reliefs based on the applicability of Moratorium. 4. Interpretation of section 14(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 5. Decision on restraining the Respondent No. 2 from proceeding with the Certificate Case. Issue 1: Application for stay of Certificate Case proceedings under section 33(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act The Resolution Professional (RP) filed an application seeking a stay of Certificate Case proceedings initiated under section 33(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The RP informed the District Certificate Officer about the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and the moratorium under section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Despite this, the Respondent No. 2 directed the Corporate Debtor to comply with a workmen's demand, leading to the adjournment of the case for coercive action. Issue 2: Violation of Moratorium under section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code The RP alleged that the Respondent No. 2 was not abiding by the moratorium that came into effect upon the admission of the Company Petition against the Corporate Debtor. The RP feared punitive measures, including arrest, and sought interim reliefs to prevent such actions. Issue 3: Opposing grant of interim reliefs based on the applicability of Moratorium The Respondent No. 1 opposed the grant of interim reliefs, arguing that the moratorium under section 14(1) would only apply to pending proceedings creating new liabilities. If the proceedings relate to determining old liabilities, the moratorium cannot stop them. Issue 4: Interpretation of section 14(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Section 14(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code prohibits various actions upon the insolvency commencement date, including instituting suits, transferring assets, or enforcing security interests against the corporate debtor. The moratorium applies to all proceedings except writ jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court. Issue 5: Decision on restraining the Respondent No. 2 from proceeding with the Certificate Case Considering the circumstances and the applicability of section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restrain the Respondent No. 2 from further proceedings in the Certificate Case until the moratorium ends. The Registry was directed to notify the Respondent No. 2 and set deadlines for filing replies, scheduling the matter for a future hearing date. This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the judgment, focusing on the application for stay, violation of moratorium, opposition to interim reliefs, interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the decision to restrain the Respondent No. 2 from proceeding with the Certificate Case.
|
