9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under the Securitisation Act is also prohibited. Besides there is violations of order of moratorium passed by this Tribunal on 01.06.2017. As there is a direct statutory violation we find that it is a fit case for imposing cost. Accordingly, a cost of ₹ 25,000/- is imposed on the non applicant / respondent. The cost be deposited in the Prime Minister Welfare Fund. While we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 25th January, 2018 but set aside the order whereunder cost of ₹ 25000/- has been imposed and make our interim order dated 21st March, 2018 absolute which will continue during the period of moratorium. However, after the period of moratorium is over, it will be open to the bank to act in accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in force the financial creditor including the bank has to prefer its claim before the RP, which would be considered alongwith other claims as per law. We further find that there is direct violation of Section 14(1)(c) which creates a bar prohibiting any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitisation Act is also prohibited. Besides there is violations of order of moratorium passed by this Tribunal on 01.06.2017. As there is a direct statutory violation we find that it is a fit case for imposing cost. Accordingly, a cost of ₹ 25,000/- is imposed on the non applicant / respondent. The cost be deposited in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further it appears that the Bank cannot freeze the account nor can prohibit the corporate debtor from withdrawing the amount, as available on the date of moratorium for its day to day functioning through Resolution Professional. Heard the parties. Post the matter for further hearing on 26th March, 2018. In the meantime, it will be open to the appellant and the respondent to file additional affidavit. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant referred to the statement of bank account of the Corporate Debtor for the period from 01.06.2017 to 31.07.2017 and submits that the order of Moratorium was passed on 01.06.2017 by which dated the Corporate Debtor has overdrawn ₹ 8,04,81,486.35/- over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
