9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove referred orders. In view of NUI Pulp and Paper Industries case [ 2019 (9) TMI 843 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI ], this Tribunal is empowered to pass any appropriate interim order, as may be necessary, for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Tribunal, in exercise of its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the 2016 Rules. This Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 11 of the 2016 Rules, restrain the respondent-corporate debtor and its Directors from alienating, encumbering or creating any third party interest on the assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein, except withdrawal of the legitimate expenses required for carrying out the day to day expenses, till 05.09.2019 - Application disposed off. - Ajay Kumar Vatsavayi, Member (J) And Pradeep R. Sethi, Member (T) For the Appellant : Harsh Garg , Advocate For the Respondents : Sumit Jain , Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Vatsavayi, Member (J) 1. This application has been filed by the petitioner-financial creditor i.e. Punjab National Bank against the respondent-corporate debtor i.e. M/s. Kut Energy Pvt. Ltd., under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 of 2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. In pursuance of the said orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, CWP No. 2274/2017 was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. 4. It is also submitted that subsequently, the respondent-corporate debtor had moved an application in the abovementioned CWP for returning back of the amount of ₹ 40 Crores, however, the Hon'ble High Court declined the said relief and instead transferred the said amount to DRT-III, Chandigarh and ordered DRT-III, Chandigarh to decide the original application ('OA') filed by the applicant within four months and accordingly appropriate the aforesaid amount if the OA filed by the applicant-bank is allowed. 5. Against the said order of declining the release of ₹ 40 Crores by the Hon'ble High Court, the respondent-corporate debtor approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Vide judgment dated 20.08.2019, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the applicant-bank has no lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 and as such ordered to release the said amount of ₹ 40 Crores to the respondent-corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the Hon'ble High Court and Debt Recovery Tribunal. 10. It is relevant to note the operative portion of the judgment dated 23.08.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6016-6017 of 2019 filed by corporate debtor, reads as under:- 11. In the present case the deposit of ₹ 40 crores in terms of the order of the High Court on 11.10.2017 was only to show the bona fides of the appellants when a revised offer was made by them. The deposit was not towards satisfaction of the debt in question and that is precisely why the High Court had directed that the deposit would be treated to be a deposit in the Registry of the High Court. Going by the law laid down by this Court in Axis Bank 3 the 'secured creditor' would be entitled to proceed only against the 'secured assets' mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. In that case, the deposit was made to maintain an appeal before the DRAT and it was specifically held that the amount representing such deposit was neither a 'secured asset' nor a 'secured debt' which could be proceeded against and that the appellant before DRAT was entitled to refund of the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the 'Corporate Debtor' may abuse the process of the 'I B Code' to deny the creditors from its legitimate rights if admission of the application under Section 9. 12. The Appellant having not given any undertaking or made any specific reply and refused to say that they have no such intention, we are of the view that it is always open to the Adjudicating Authority to pass ad-interim order before admitting any application under Sections 7 or 9 or 10 of the 'I B Code'. However, on reply, once the application is admitted, then the order of 'Moratorium' under Section 14 will follow, taking away the right of the Board of Directors of the 'Corporate Debtor' to take any decision on behalf of the 'Corporate Debtor' prohibiting others from taking any action against the 'Corporate Debtor' which is different from interim order. On the other hand, if application under Sections 7 or 9 or 10 is rejected, the interim order will automatically stands vacated. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. 12. The Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
