9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny question of law or fact, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution for liquidation proceedings. Therefore, the jurisdiction vested in NCLT while dealing with a resolution plan is of wide ambit and any question of law or fact in relation to the insolvency resolution has to be determined by the NCLT. Ex-facie, the controversy sought to be raised in the present suit is a subject matter of proceedings before the NCLT/NCLAT. As such, the bar under Section 60 and Section 231 would squarely apply to the present suit. In the circumstances, the plaint is returned, with liberty to the plaintiff to take appropriate remedies as may be available to him under law. Application disposed off. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA For the Plaintiff Through: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Kunal Sachdeva and Ms. Srishti Bajpai, Advs. For the Defendants Through: Mr. Aditya Soni, Adv. for D-2. JUDGMENT 1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff who is a member of the erstwhile board of directors of Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited ( COPL ), which has been admitted into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ( CIRP ) vide order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1 as aforesaid. COPL being the owner of the site, acknowledged the dues of defendant No. 1 and assured defendant No. 1 in 2013 that an amount of Rs. 72,10,000/- shall be paid to defendant No. 1 by COPL. 6. The aforesaid amount remained unpaid to defendant No. 1 despite COPL s acknowledgment and assurance that an amount of Rs. 72,10,000/- shall be paid to defendant No. 1 by COPL. Further, certain cheques which had been issued by COPL in favour of defendant No. 1, were dishonored. 7. Thereafter, a fresh contract dated 14.03.2015 was entered into between COPL and defendant No. 1 and vide letter dated 25.11.2015; COPL acknowledged that a sum of Rs. 92,70,000/- was payable to defendant No. 1 by COPL and assured that the aforesaid sum shall be paid by 15.02.2016. 8. The aforesaid dues continued to remain unpaid by COPL, and hence, a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ( IBC ) came to be filed by defendant No. 1 against COPL at NCLT Chandigarh in 2019. 9. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that after filing of the aforesaid Section 9 petition, a settlement agreement dated 27.09.2021 was executed between the COPL and defendant No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst COPL were also granted liberty to file the same vide the aforesaid order. 13. On 13.03.2023, an application was filed by the defendant No. 2 herein (Mr. Sanjeev Chadha) in the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 262 of 2023, seeking to be impleaded in the aforesaid company appeal as respondent no. 3 therein, while stating that he shall be a necessary party for adjudication of the appeal in view of a purported assignment deed dated 03.02.2023 which was executed between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, whereby the defendant No. 1, for a mutually agreed consideration with defendant No. 2, assigned all of its rights, title and interest with respect to the outstanding debt owed to it by COPL to the assignee, i.e., defendant No. 2 herein. 14. It is averred that the plaintiff learnt about the existence of the said assignment deed dated 03.02.2023 when it was filed alongwith the impleadment application of defendant No. 2 before the NCLAT, Delhi. 15. It is on the said basis that the plaintiff has sought to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this court, and has filed the present suit. 16. Before the suit can proceed forward, the two preliminary objections of the def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endant No. 2 that if this argument of the plaintiff was to be accepted, any document filed before any Court could create jurisdiction of that Court. 21. The learned counsel for the defendant No. 2 submits that the averment of the plaintiff that the plaintiff got to know about the purported assignment deed dated 03.02.2023 when it was filed by defendant No. 2 in NCLAT, New Delhi is false. It is submitted that in Ground A of the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 262/2023 filed by the plaintiff before NCLAT, New Delhi, it has been categorically pleaded by the plaintiff that the debt owned by defendant No. 1 was assigned to defendant No. 2 prior to the passing of order dated 27.02.2023 in the Section 9 proceedings bearing No. CP(IB) No. 248/Chd/2019 before NCLT Chandigarh. It is therefore submitted that the plaintiff had prior knowledge of the assignment of debt. 22. The learned counsel for defendant No. 2 further submits that the proceedings before NCLAT were appellate proceedings emanating from the Section 9 proceedings filed by defendant No. 1 in NCLT, Chandigarh and the plaintiff has already submitted to the jurisdiction of Chandigarh. 23. The learned counsel for defend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the operational debt, hence, the operational debt remained due and unpaid, in which default was committed by the Corporate Debtor. Hence, no exception can be taken to the admission of Section 9 Application. It is further relevant to notice that at the time of admission of the Appeal, the Appellant offered to deposit an amount of Rs. 35 lakhs, which according to the Appellant was the amount due and payable and for which the default was committed, but as noted above, there being breach in the Settlement Agreement and Corporate Debtor having failed to make the payment as per the Settlement Agreement, the amount for which the Application was initiated became due and the payment of Rs. 35 lakhs in no manner can satisfy the entire debt and due. The Settlement Agreement having breached, the Appellant cannot insist to accept the Settlement Agreement at this stage. 24. The learned counsel for the defendant No. 2 submits that an appeal against the aforesaid judgment dated 23.08.2023 was preferred by the plaintiff before the Supreme Court, wherein the Supreme Court, vide its order dated 06.09.2023 observed as under: Appellant Tejinder Pal Setia has offered to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 in FCCPL s project site which was located in Mohali, Punjab. Further, COPL also has its registered office in Chandigarh. The Section 9 petition filed on behalf of defendant No. 1 was filed in NCLT, Chandigarh, wherein the order admitting COPL into CIRP was passed. 28. As such, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the prayers of the plaintiff with respect to the assignment deed dated 03.02.2023, which is the fulcrum of the present suit. The contention of the plaintiff that it became aware of the assignment deed when it was filed as a document before the NCLAT, would not confer any jurisdiction for the purpose of Section 20 of the CPC. 29. Also, crucially, particularly with respect to prayer C of the plaintiff, since COPL is undergoing CIRP, the present suit is precluded/barred under Section 231 of the IBC. 30. It would be relevant to consider the following provisions of the IBC: 60. (1) The Adjudicating Authority, in relation to insolvency resolution and liquidation for corporate persons including corporate debtors and personal guarantors thereof shall be the National Company Law Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er in which the Adjudicating Authority is empowered by, or under, this Code to pass any order and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any order passed by such Adjudicating Authority under this Code. 31. Sections 63 and 231 IBC create a bar on the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of any matter in which the NCLT and NCLAT has jurisdiction under the IBC and the adjudicating authority under the Code is competent to pass any order. Further, clause (c) sub-Section (5) of Section 60 of the Code vests the jurisdiction in NCLT to entertain and dispose of any question of priorities or any question of law or fact, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution for liquidation proceedings. Therefore, the jurisdiction vested in NCLT while dealing with a resolution plan is of wide ambit and any question of law or fact in relation to the insolvency resolution has to be determined by the NCLT. 32. Ex-facie, the controversy sought to be raised in the present suit is a subject matter of proceedings before the NCLT/NCLAT. As such, the bar under Section 60 and Section 231 would squ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
