9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y i.e., NCLT, it prohibits the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor, which includes execution of any judgment, decree or order in any Court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel and other authorities. The corporate debtor in this case being the appellant/defendant no. 1, as alluded to above, the appellant/defendant no. 1 has preferred a counter claim. Clearly, the plain language of Section 14 (1) (a) of the IBC does not prohibit continuation of a counter-claim. The counter-claim, as defined under Order VIII Rule 6 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, typically as against a set off, can relate to a cause of action accruing to a defendant vis-a-vis the plaintiff, either before or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 019 was sought was not adjudicated and instead, simply notice was issued with a direction to the learned Joint Registrar to record evidence in the matter. 3. According to us, if the order had ended with issuance of notice to respondent no. 1/plaintiff, one would have found no reason to interfere. 4. As observed by us while issuing notice in the appeal and hereinabove, the learned Single Judge went on to direct the learned Joint Registrar to continue with recordal of evidence in the suit action. 5. Concededly, the appellant/ defendant no. 1, in the suit action preferred by the respondent no. 1/ plaintiff, has filed a counter-claim. The purpose of moving I.A. 9857/2019 was to seek modification of the order dated 22.10.2019, to the extent that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellant/ defendant no. 1 has submitted that the decision in SSMP is contrary to several decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and other High Courts. 10. In this context, reliance was placed on the following judgments: (i) P. Mohanraj Ors. v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 258; (ii) New Delhi Municipal Council v. Minosha India Limited, (2022) 8 SCC 384; (iii) Zillion Infraprojects Private Limited v. Tenova Technologies Private Ltd., 2024:KHC:7368; (iv) Imperial Consultants and Securities Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Mumbai, 2024:BHC-OS:2101-DB. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that SSMP enunciates good law and, therefore, the direction issued by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the IBC would show that once moratorium is declared by the adjudicating authority i.e., NCLT, it prohibits the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor, which includes execution of any judgment, decree or order in any Court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel and other authorities. The corporate debtor in this case being the appellant/defendant no. 1, as alluded to above, the appellant/defendant no. 1 has preferred a counter claim. 19. Clearly, the plain language of Section 14 (1) (a) of the IBC does not prohibit continuation of a counter-claim. The counter-claim, as defined under Order VIII Rule 6 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, typi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
