9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was to show bona-fide of the Corporate Debtor towards the OTS. It is also admitted fact that OTS did not materialize and the money lying in the No Lien Account was not adjusted/enchased by the Bank. Subsequently, the CIRP was initiated on 03.01.2020 and despite repeated requests of the Resolution Professional, the Appellant bank did not release the said amount. Once the CIRP was initiated, the amount lying in the No Lien Account , which on that date belonged to the Corporate Debtor, by natural corollary is an asset of the Corporate Debtor which the IRP/RP was obliged to take under his control/custody as per provisions of Section 18 of IBC, 2016. Since the moratorium had commenced, on initiation of CIRP on 03.01.2020, the Bank in any case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor, M/s Jaybharat Textiles Real Estate Ltd. was admitted into CIRP on 03.01.2020. The Interim Resolution Professional (hereinafter called as IRP ) was appointed who called for the claims and thereafter constituted Committee of Creditors (hereinafter called as COC ). As per provisions of Section 18 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the IRP initiated steps to takeover the assets of the Corporate Debtor. The IRP corresponded with the Appellant to allow the operation of No Lien Account and release of the amount of Rs. One crore held in the said account for the purpose of CIRP. The issue was taken up in the 3rd COC meeting held on 05.09.2020 and the Appellant was requested to release the said amount, but the Appellant refused to release ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able or immovable; iv. intangible assets including intellectual property; v. securities including shares held in any subsidiary of the Corporate Debtor, financial instruments, insurance policies; vi. assets subject to the determination of ownership by a court or authority. 15. It is also a matter of record that on admission of C.P. (IB) No. 266/2019 the COC is constituted and the Bank of India being the part of the COC has also put forth his claims before the COC, and being the member of the COC, the claim has been admitted. The Respondent has not produced any documents, so as to show that the claim which is made before the COC is/are minus this amount received by way of OTS. Thus, when the claim of the members has already been considered d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e towards One Time Settlement (hereinafter called OTS ) made by the Appellant on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. A copy of the cheque No. 852249 dated 16.07.2017 appears at page 246 of Appeal Paper Book, which clearly shows that the payment was made to Bank of India on account of Jaybharat Textiles Real Estate Ltd., though the cheque has been issued by Wellworth Apparels Private Limited. The Appellant, Bank of India has not adjusted the said amount of Rs. 1 Crore in its claim, acknowledging thereby that this amount remains the asset of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor in its letter dated 12.07.2017 had specifically made it clear that the said amount may be adjusted upon approval of OTS/Resolution Plan. In absence of OTS/Resolution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DRAT was entitled to refund of the amount so deposited. The submission that the bank had general lien over such deposit in terms of Section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872 was rejected as the money was not with the bank but with the DRAT. In the instant case also, the money was expressly to be treated to be with the Registry of the High Court. 13. On the strength of the law laid down by this Court in Axis Bank, in our view, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the sum deposited by them in terms of said order dated 11.10.2017. Their entitlement having been established, the claim of the appellants cannot be negated by any direction that the money may continue to be in deposit with the Bank ( Emphasis supplied ) 6. It was further submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n over the money held in a customer s account is a Statutory Right, is unable, keeping in view the facts of the attendant case and also that CIRP had commenced on 26.11.2019, and having regard to the fact that the amount was deposited with a specific understanding that the amount shall not be used by the Bank until approval of OTS. Admittedly, the said amount was paid at the behest of the Corporate Debtor by a third party and it was lying with the Bank for more than five years. 9. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that an Appeal against IA 522/2020 was also preferred regarding the conduct of the RP is of no relevance to the facts of this case and therefore we do not consider it fit to make any observations regarding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
