9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (I.B) No. 20/7/NCLT/AHM/2018. 2. Brief facts of this case are that Appellant (Financial Creditor) has filed the application against the Respondent (Corporate Debtor) under section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in brief 'I&B Code') in March - April, 2018. Before filing of the application 'Financial Creditor' has served the notice under section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 3-1-2017 on Corporate Debtor. During the pendency of the application before the Adjudicating Authority, Corporate Debtor has sent a proposal for One Time Settlement. However, the Financial Creditor was not agreed with the proposal and on the ground that the settlement is going on some hearing dates have been adjourned. 3. On 19-7-2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as High Court in identical facts held as under:- "48. Further contention of the petitioners that the action of the 2nd respondent in approaching the NCLT, would amount to forum shopping, also cannot be countenanced, for the reason, I&B code, 2016, has been enacted, consolidating various enactments, such as, Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985; the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Companies Act, 2003; Insolvency and Bankruptcy law and other laws. 49. As per Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, provisions of the Code shall have the effect, notwithstanding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is more than Rs. 1 lakh, the application u/s 7 of the I&B Code is maintainable. Mere pendency of the case before the DRT for adjudicating of such disputed amount cannot be a ground to reject the application u/s 7 of the I&B Code, if the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that there is a 'debt' and 'default' and the application is complete. On the other hand, in view of Section 14 all such proceedings in respect of any debt will remain stayed and cannot proceed during the period of moratorium." 8. This Tribunal in the case of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 323/2019 (Neeraj Jain Vs. Yes Bank Ltd. & Anr.) decided on 10-4-2019 held that Section being an independent proceedings is nothing to do with the pendency of Criminal Case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned that the Corporate Debtor has sent the notice under section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, thus, the Financial Creditor has not suppressed any material fact. The Financial Creditor has initiated parallel proceedings against the Corporate Debtor in SARFAESI Act as well as I&B Code, only on this ground it cannot be inferred that proceedings against the Corporate Debtor are fraudulent or malicious. 13. The application under section 7 of I&B Code is pending since March-April, 2018. Hence, we hope and trust that Adjudicating Authority shall decide the application expeditiously as per law. With the above discussion we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, it is hereby set aside. However, no order as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
