Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal could continue against the guarantors and mortgagors when a moratorium had been ordered under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the corporate debtor.
Analysis: The dispute arose from recovery proceedings under Section 19(3) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the company and its guarantors. The company had already moved the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium under Section 14 had been declared. The legal effect of the moratorium, the overriding operation of the insolvency regime, and the scheme of Sections 31, 33 and 60 of the Code were considered. The Court held that the insolvency process was already in motion, the bank had participated in those proceedings, and sufficient safeguards existed under the Code and the regulations. In these circumstances, split and parallel proceedings on the same cause of action were found to be inappropriate.
Conclusion: The proceedings pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal could not continue and were stayed until completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or until approval of the resolution plan or passing of a liquidation order, as the case may be.