9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (in short 'Rules') seeking the following reliefs: (a) An order directing the Respondent No.1, to give the custody of the assets of the Corporate Debtor, seized pursuant to Inventory cum Seizure list dated 23.02.2018 being Annexure 'A' hereto, to the Applicant forthwith so that all necessary steps in accordance with the IBC, 2016 can be taken by the Liquidator; (b) An order directing the Respondent No.1 DRI, to remit the sum of the 25,25,02,220/- paid to it by the Respondent No.2 namely, Bank of Nova Scotia, under the cover of its letter dated 2.2.2018, to the Applicant forthwith so that and all necessary steps in accordance with the IBC, 2016 can be taken by the Liquidator; (c) An order directing the Receivers appointed by the Debts Recovery, Kolkata and/or the erstwhile management of the Corporate Debtor or such other person or persons who are in physical possession of the properties described in Schedule being Annexure L annexed hereto to handover the possession of the said immovable properties to the Liquidator so that appropriate steps in accordance with law can be taken by the Liquidator; (d) Such further and other order or orders as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appeal has been filed. 6. The impugned order also deals with another application bearing Misc. Application (IB) No. 22/KB/2019 purported to have been filed by the Liquidator in which he has prayed for the following reliefs: "(a) An order directing the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 to allow complete custody of the asset of the corporate debtor at Manikanchan to the applicant within the Special Economic Zone, Manikanchan so that the applicant can take physical possession of the said property; (b) Inspector-in-Charge of Diamond Harbour Police Station be directed to provide all assistance to the applicant for facilitating smooth take over physical possession of the Manikanchan property of the Corporate Debtor situated within the Special Economic Zone, Manikanchan; (c) Further and other order or orders and/or direction or directions be given." The said application was also allowed by the same impugned order dated 23.04.2019 with the following reliefs: "(i) Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to allow complete custody of the assets of the corporate debtor at Manikanchan to the applicant within the Special Economic Zone, Manikanchan so that the applicant can take physical pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court can always lift the veil to find out the fraud because fraud vitiates everything even though the Appellant had not challenged the order of admission dated 12.02.2018. 10. Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the argument raised by the Appellant is not available to him because they are only concerned with the seizure of the goods on 23.03.2018 which has been ordered to be returned by the impugned order dated 23.04.2019 by the Hon'ble Tribunal. It is further submitted that the admission order could have been challenged only by the Corporate Debtor and not by the Appellant that too merely by showing that there were some statements recorded during the investigation. It is rather submitted that the whole case in fact is that as to whether the Appellant had the jurisdiction and competence to seize the goods (gold) after the imposition of moratorium w.e.f. 12.02.2018 and as to whether the provisions of the Act would prevail over and above the provisions of the Code. In this regard, he has relied upon a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard Vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs in Civil Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority only has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies. The respondent authority does not have been the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of sale/confiscation, as provided under the Customs Act. ii) After such assessment, the respondent authority has to submit its claims (concerning customs dues/operational debt) in terms of the procedure laid down, in strict compliance of the time periods prescribed under the IBC, before the adjudicating authority. iii) In any case, the IRP/RP/liquidator can immediately secure goods from the respondent authority to be dealt with appropriately, in terms of the IBC." 14. As regards the second issue is concerned, admittedly the Intervenor had filed its own appeal in order to challenge the findings recorded in its I.A. No. 22 of 2019 but their Appeal No. 94 of 2020 was dismissed on 20.01.2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. has observed that: "12. Learned counsel for the intervenors submits that he is entitled to the same order as we have just passed. We cannot pass such an order in an intervention application. The only purpose of granti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
