9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lal Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Umesh Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Arjun Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Aditya, Adv. Mr. Sahil Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishal Singh, Adv. Mr./Ms. Sejal Jain, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Adv. Ms. Preeti Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Ankit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Varun Pandit, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Arora, Adv JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J. 1. The impugned orders in these appeals are more or less identical. Therefore, we are making a reference to the factual aspects in Civil Appeal Nos. 4480-4481 of 2023. In a complaint filed by the homebuyers before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the National Commission'), an order was made by the National Commission directing the Developer to complete the project in all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e executed against the company due to the operation of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. Thereafter, the National Commission observed that in view of moratorium against the company, it would not be appropriate to proceed in the same execution against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 9. Another observation was made that other opposite parties (opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 to the execution application) were not parties in the main complaint. The appellant is the applicant/decree holder in the execution applications. 4. The submission in brief of the appellants is that under the provisions of the IBC, there is no prohibition on proceeding against the directors/officers of the company, which is the subject-matter of moratorium under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2 to 9) in the execution application were under an obligation to abide by the directions issued against the company. This issue has not been considered at all by the National Commission. There is no finding recorded by the National Commission that in view of any particular provision of the IBC, moratorium will apply to the directors/officers of the company. 8. In the case of Anjali Rathi(supra), a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges has quoted with approval paragraph '102' of its earlier judgment in the case of P. Mohanraj(supra). Paragraph '102' in the case of P. Mohanraj(supra), which reads thus:- "102. Since the corporate debtor would be covered by the moratorium provision contained in Section 14 IBC, by which continuation of Sections 138 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, as indicated earlier, this Court cannot issue such a direction relying on a Resolution Plan which is still pending approval before an Adjudicating Authority." 10. Thus, this Court approved the view taken in the case of P. Mohanraj(supra) that notwithstanding moratorium, the liability, if any, of the directors/officers will continue. This Court, therefore, permitted the appellants to expressly proceed against the promoters of the company though there was a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC affecting the company. 11. Therefore, we are of the view that only because there is a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC against the company, it cannot be said that no proceedings can be initiated against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 9( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
