9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with the Daaksh Jute Mill LLP have already been deposited with the authorities but even if there is anything pending in that regard that shall be deposited by Daaksh Jute Mill LLP and no liability will fall on the Corporate Debtor or for that matter on the liquidator. Since the amount claimed by PF Authorities, a major portion whereof is stated to have already been paid by Daaksh Jute Mill LLP, and the remaining amount has already been claimed by the PF Authorities by submitting their claim before the Liquidator, there is hardly anything left to be argued in this matter. In these circumstances, the prayer of the applicant in the IA 849/2022 is allowed in terms of the prayer made in the application. Application disposed off. - I.A. (IB) 849/KB/2021 in C.P. (IB) No. 508/KB/2017 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2022 - Rohit Kapoor, Member (J) And Harish Chander Suri, Member (T) For Appearing Parties: Joy Saha, Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Advs., Arun Kumar Gupta, PCA, Arik Banerjee, Manju Bhuteria, Rishav Banerjee, Arkodeo Sinha, Anil Kumar Gupta, Dhirendra Nath Sharma, Urmila Chakraborty, Meenakshi Manot and Niloy Sengupta, Advs. ORDER Harish Chander Suri, Member (T) 1. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfully running the Jute Mill of the Corporate Debtor and has been making payment on regular basis to the employees and workers of their dues which has arisen subsequent to the execution of the agreement dated 1st August, 2016 and all the employees and workers have expressed their satisfaction to the working of the Jute Mill and have been able to run their livelihood from running of the Jute Mill. It is stated that prior to the execution of the agreement dated 1st August, 2016 between the applicant and the then Management of the Corporate Debtor, the Jute Mill was closed for almost 2 years. 6. It is stated that the claim of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to the tune of Rs. 2,68,57,856/- in respect of the Provident Fund dues which arises from the Jute Mill of the Corporate Debtor is already the subject matter of claim form filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Form No. 'C' under Regulation 17 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulation, 2016, which was submitted by Respondent No. 1 2 with the Liquidator/Respondent No. 3 dated 17th August, 2020 (Annexure-D). 7. The applicant further submits that except a sum of Rs. 41,85,955/- which arises under section 7A of the said Act of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, and v. Bindal Smelting Vs. Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence. 13. Ld. Counsel further submitted that since the PF authorities have already submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the NCLT by lodging their claim before the Liquidator, therefore, they are now estopped and barred from issuing any attachment order invoking the provisions of 1952 Act for the recovery of the self same claim which is already an issue before the NCLT. 14. It is further submitted by the applicant that the provisions of Section 17B of the 1952 Act will not be applicable in the facts of the present case because there is no transfer of any establishment or any Jute Mill or any asset or any property of the Corporate Debtor in favour of the applicant. The Title of the Jute Mill is till with the Corporate Debtor. The applicant is only operating and running the Jute Mill on behalf of the Corporate Debtor for a period of 9 years on the basis of lease deed and that it is not the case of any sale, gift or lease or licences granted by the Corporate Debtor in favour of the applicant. 15. It is stated that no claim for the period p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n confirmed by the Recovery Officer to the Applicant vide letter dated 27.08.2021 (Annexure-E). It is stated that the application being devoid of any merit, is not maintainable or in fact, the same is liable to be dismissed. 20. Similarly, Respondent No. 3, Liquidator, in its reply affidavit has submitted that the application of Daaksh Jute LLP, which is not a Corporate Debtor under Section 60 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not maintainable because it is not a dispute arising out of CIRP of Tirupati Jute Industries Limited. The Corporate Debtor is Tirupati Jute Industries Limited and not Daaksh Jute LLP, thereafter the application is not maintainable. 21. It is further submitted by the Liquidator that the subject matter of the application is an attachment order/Notice dated 21st September, 2021 for not depositing Provident Fund dues of Rs. 1,92,75,853/- and attaching the bank account of the Daakh Jute LLP with the HDFC Bank. It is stated that there cannot be any protection from any legal proceeding initiated by EPF Authorities after the order of liquidation. Such protection is only enjoyed by a corporate debtor under section 33(5) of the IBC and as such the questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Provident Fund Authority on December 29, 2021 and February 15, 2022 were stayed pending disposal of the writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents No. 6, 8 and 9 that despite notices dated December 29, 2021 and February 15, 2022 being stayed by this Court the 6th respondent is unable to operate the Overdraft Cash Credit Account maintained in its Liluah Branch as no such liberty was provided by this Court in the order. Referring to a letter issued by the petitioner bank to the 6th respondent on March 17, 2022 learned counsel submit no order for defreezing of the Cash Credit Account could be granted in absence of any order to that effect by this Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Provident Fund Authority vehemently opposes the application and makes his submission on the merits of the writ petition. He submits that the respondent No. 6 should be directed to clear the Provident Fund dues of the workmen. Upon consideration of the submission made on behalf of the parties, this Court is inclined to hold that clarification of the order passed by the this Court on March 11, 2022 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
