9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MB/2019. In the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority while disposing of the said I.A., directed the Appellant/Liquidator to take up with the relevant government authorities and their grievances redressal mechanism to de-freeze the bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor towards consolidating the assets of the Corporate Debtor which is under liquidation. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the Appellant has challenged this order on the ground that the Adjudicating Authority has refused to exercise the powers vested on it by the IBC to direct the banks/government authorities to de-freeze the accounts of Corporate Debtor and instead directed the Appellant to again approach the appropriate government authorities. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also filed I.A. No. 860 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 328 of 2022 seeking condonation of delay in filing this Appeal. There being a delay of less than 15 days in filing the appeal and the delay period falls within the permissible period under Proviso to Section 61(2) of IBC and the grounds of delay cited appear to be bona-fide, the I.A. is allowed and the delay in filing the delay is condoned. 3. The brief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of which are extracted as under: - "......As per the procedure in law as liquidator, the Liquidator has powers to take appropriate steps to consolidate the assets of the Corporate Debtor. Liquidator is directed to take the matter with the relevant Government Authorities including the grievances redressal mechanism of those Authorities. The Applicant is at liberty to take appropriate steps as available under the law. With this observation, the Application is disposed of." In other words, it was held by the Adjudicating Authority that the Appellant/Liquidator, as empowered by IBC, ought to continue the follow-up exercise with the relevant government authorities to consolidate the assets of the Corporate Debtor. 6. Aggrieved by the above directions contained in the impugned order, the Appellant has preferred this appeal with the prayer to set aside the impugned order and direct the Respondents No 1 and 2 to release the attachment placed by them on the bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor and, in the alternative, direct Respondents No. 3 and 4 to defreeze the bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor. 7. We also heard the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 who submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owers the liquidator to exercise authority to seek the defreezing of the current bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor and transfer the funds lying therein to the Liquidator's account so as to form part of the liquidation estate. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that exercising these powers, the Appellant/Liquidator in the present matter had entered into protracted correspondence, through emails and letters, both with the government authorities and the banks to unlock the frozen accounts. This has been substantiated by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant by attaching related documents at pages 22-41 and 44-50 of Appeal Paper Book. On perusal of these communications, we note that the Appellant made genuine and sustained efforts to bring the bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor into the liquidation estate and thus cannot be faulted for any inaction or non-compliance on his part. That these efforts of the liquidator, so far, has remained an exercise in futility and not generated any traction is also borne out by the facts placed before us. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that their endeavours to persuade the Respondent parties to defreeze the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) any claim made by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person, including claims by or against any of its subsidiaries situated in India; and (c) any question of priorities or any question of law or facts, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor or corporate person under this Code." From a plain reading of the above provision of IBC and also given that the said section is prefaced with a non-obstante clause, we are inclined to agree that the Adjudicating Authority is vested with residuary jurisdiction and it therefore casts a responsibility on the Adjudicating Authority to intervene in certain circumstances. The present is also a fit case where the Adjudicating Authority could have exercised its residuary discretion under Section 60(5) so as to ensure that the objectives of IBC are not frustrated including providing relief to the Liquidator in stalemate circumstances as the present. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Amit Gupta & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9241 of 2019) that the residuary jurisdiction of the NCLT under Section 60(5) (c) of the IBC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h and C. & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 694 and its progeny, making it clear that income tax dues, being in the nature of Crown debts, do not take precedence even over secured creditors, who are private persons. We are of the view that the High Court of Delhi, is, therefore, correct in law. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of." 8. The Learned Counsel has referred to this Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Judgment referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Order and submits that the freezing of Account by the Respondent No. 1 is not maintainable and the Liquidator cannot be made to run to the parties and Authorities under the Sales Tax Act to get the Account defreezed. Learned Counsel submits, and, rightly says that Liquidation Proceedings are time-bound to maximize the value and all the Creditors are entitled to get their dues only in terms of Section 53 of 1&B Code, 2016 and different Creditors cannot be allowed to resort to different proceedings and enactments only because they are Authorities under earlier enactments considering the Provision of Section 238 of 1 & B Code, 2016. 9. We accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
