9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with and cannot be subject matter of the insolvency process. The facts of the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 70 of 2022 are fully covered by the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. [ 2019 (12) TMI 188 - SUPREME COURT ]. We, thus, are of the view that IA 111/2021 filed by the Appellant against the Additional Collector and Tehsildar deserves to be rejected. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 70 of 2022 is disposed of while rejecting IA No. 111/2021. Appeal disposed off. - Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 68 of 2022 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 69 of 2022 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 70 of 2022 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 71 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 3-6-2022 - [Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson And [Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Jayant K Mehta, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Mr. Kunal Vaishnav, Ms. Amrita Grover Ms. Smiti Verma. For the Respondents : Mr. T. Kanaka Raju, for R-2. JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. These Appeals have been filed by the same Appellant challenging the common order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled, all claims prior to CIRP Commencement Date shall stand extinguished. The Application was disposed of by common order dated 03.12.2021. 4. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 70 of 2022, order dated 03.12.2021 rejecting I.A No.111/2021 has been challenged. By I.A No. 111/2021, the Appellant has prayed for quashing the notices/ report issued by the Respondent under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. In the I.A, the Appellant has claimed that the notices and letters have been issued on 28.02.2019 and 11.12.2019 respectively. During the Moratorium period, the Talathi has conducted a survey of the land and prepared a report on 28.02.2019. Allegation is that the Appellant has breached the provisions of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. By the Application, the Appellant has prayed for quashing the notices and reports. 5. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 71 of 2022, challenge is to the order dated 03.12.2021 passed in I.A No. 2577/2021. I.A was filed with respect to the order dated 30.07.2020 by which amount of Rs.3,69,62,268/- is sought to be recovered which was alleged to have been re-credit wrongly taken by the Appellant under the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 9. Shri Satish Kumar, Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.69 of 2022 refers to an order dated 27.08.2020 by which demand of Rs.1,77,23,493/- has been confirmed. Apart from the imposition of penalty under the Custom Act, 1962, it is submitted that show-cause notice was issued on 22.02.2019 which ultimately resulted in the order dated 27.08.2020. It is submitted that the Appellant has misclassified their products and wrongly availed the benefit of export incentive which was inadmissible to them. Corporate Debtor is liable to pay the said amount. 10. Shri Vijay Joshi, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 71 of 2022 submits that the show-cause notice dated 22.01.2016 was issued for demand of Rs.3,69,62,268/-by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Gandhidham which was prior to initiation of CIRP. The said demand was subsequently confirmed. It is submitted that the Respondent could not know about the initiation of CIRP and no information was sent by the IRP to the Respondent. 11. We have considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 dated 11.12.2019 (Exhibit D ); b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and/or set aside the proceedings being conducted by Respondent No. 1 in furtherance of the Notice dated 8th May 2019 issued by Respondent No. 2 (on behalf of Respondent No. 1) to the Applicant bearing reference no. Tenancy/T-2/M/s. Ruchi Soya Inds./12858/2019 (Exhibit C ) and Notice dated 11th December 2019 issued by Respondent No. 2 (on behalf of Respondent No. 1) to the Applicant bearing reference no. Tenancy/T-2/M/s. Ruchi Soya Inds./ 12858/2019 dated 11.12.2019 (Exhibit D ); c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Application, this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to the effect, operation and implementation of the: (i) Report dated 28th February 2019 issued by Respondent No.4 to Respondent No. 3 (Exhibit A ); (ii) Letter dated 28th February 2019 issued by Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 1 bearing reference no. RTS/KT-7/63(1-A)/Breach of Terms/2019 dated 28/02/2019 (Exhibit B ); (iii) Notice dated 8th May 2019 issued by Respondent No. 2 (on behalf of Respondent No. 1) to the Applicant bearing reference no. Tenancy/T-2/M/s. Ruchi Soya Inds./ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consequently all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued. 18. The next judgment on which much reliance was placed is the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court dated 17.02.2020 in Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India- Civil Appeal No. 447-448 of 2013 . The said case was a case of Corporate Debtor itself where Corporate Debtor has challenged the demand in a Writ Petition filed in the year 2002. Against dismissal of Writ Petition, the Appeals were filed. The Hon ble Supreme Court noticed in the judgment the subsequent events, including CIRP and approval of the Resolution Plan, were brought on the record by IA 85939 of 2021. It is useful to notice the facts as noted by the Hon ble Supreme Court:- The appellant has filed the I.A. No. 85939 of 2021 for pointing out the subsequent developments and the disposal of the appeal in terms thereof. It is not in dispute th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan. 102.2. The 2019 Amendment to Section 31 of the I B Code is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which the 181B Code has come into effect. 102.3. Consequently all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the adjudicating authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued. Admittedly, the claim in respect of the demand which is the subject matter of the present proceedings was not lodged by the respondent no. 2 after public announcements were issued under Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC. As such, on the date on which the Resolution Plan was approved by the learned NCLT, all claims stood frozen, and no claim, which is not a part of the Resolution Plan, would survive. In that view of the matter, the appeals deserve to be al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for actual purpose of Industrial use. Ref: Letter of Tahasildar Alibaug bearing No. RTS/KT-7/63(1-A)/Breach of Terms/2019 dated 28/02/2019 Lands in Tal Alibaug Village Chikhali total Gat No.28 total area 9-56-9 (H.R) and Village Jalashi total Gat No.8 total area 1-65-4 (H.R) have been purchased by you in the year 2001-2002 for bonafide Industrial use under Section 63-1A of Mumbai Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1948. The said lands have not been used for industrial purpose since 15 years of purchase. According to the report submitted by the Tahsildar Alibaug, the land is not in utilisation. Prima facie it appears that you have breached the conditions in respect of the lands purchased under Section 63-1A of Mumbai Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act 1948. To explain why action should not be taken in the above case as per Section 63-1A of Mumbai Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act 1948 a hearing is fixed on 21/05/2019 at 3 P.M. You are to be present with all necessary documents. If you fail to remain present on the appointed day and time given to you or fail to produce satisfactory explanation, then it will be considered as you have nothing to say in the said matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
