9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1208 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking enforcement of order - section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - HELD THAT - The fact that Respondent No. 2 has filed an appeal against the impugned order does not have any bearing on the obligation of the Respondent No. 1 to obey the impugned order and as on date there is also no stay from any superior court against the impugned order. Accordingly, the said order is fully enforceable as against it (Respondent No. 1) as on date. Application as filed by the Applicant/Resolution Professional stands allowed with the directions to Respondent No. 1 to make full compliance of this Tribunal order dated 23.8.2021 within two weeks' time, failing which the Applicant shall be at liberty to move appropriate application seeking further orders/directions as per law. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Enforcement of order in insolvency case against non-compliant respondents. Analysis: 1. The Resolution Professional filed IA-5137/2021 seeking enforcement of an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 182/2020 against the respondents. The order directed the respondents to contribute to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) costs in proportion to their respective claims. 2. The Resolution Professional highlighted the non-compliance of the order dated 23.08.2021 by the respondents. Despite multiple follow-ups and sharing the order with the respondents' counsels, there was no compliance or communication from the respondents. This non-compliance has halted the CIRP process, necessitating urgent enforcement of the order. 3. The Resolution Professional emphasized the importance of judicial orders' compliance to uphold the rule of law. The non-compliance by the respondents has obstructed the insolvency resolution process, violating the time-bound procedures outlined in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). 4. The counsel for respondent no. 1 sought an adjournment, citing the appeal filing process. However, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the request, emphasizing the enforceability of the order against respondent no. 1 despite any pending appeal. 5. Respondent no. 2 had filed an appeal against the order, but the obligation for respondent no. 1 to comply with the order remained unaffected. As there was no stay from a superior court against the order, it was deemed fully enforceable against respondent no. 1. 6. The IA filed by the Resolution Professional was allowed, directing respondent no. 1 to comply with the Tribunal's order within two weeks. Failure to comply would empower the Resolution Professional to seek further orders as per the law. 7. The IA was disposed of based on the above orders, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with judicial directions in insolvency cases to ensure the smooth functioning of the resolution process.
|
