TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes civil suit obstructing Liquidator's proceedings under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code</h1> <h3>In Re: Roofit Industries Limited </h3> In Re: Roofit Industries Limited - TMI Issues:- Application to quash a civil suit filed by the Liquidator of a company against Mr. E.C. John.- Compliance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) regarding disposal of company assets.- Allegations of wrongful approach by Mr. E.C. John seeking injunction against the Liquidator.- Legal implications of the suit under Section 33(5) of the IBC.- Threats and obstruction faced by the Liquidator from Mr. E.C. John.Analysis:The judgment deals with an application by the Liquidator of a company to quash a civil suit filed by Mr. E.C. John, who was also the occupant of the Corporate Debtor. The Liquidator sought to dispose of the company's assets in compliance with the IBC, 2016. Despite Mr. John's initial lack of compliance with IBC requirements, he later expressed interest in purchasing a property of the Corporate Debtor, but his offer was below market value. The Liquidator subsequently sold the property to third parties at a better price, following due process under the IBC.During the court proceedings, Mr. John attempted to claim rights over the property by mentioning a wall he had constructed around it. However, the court found his actions inappropriate and refused his request to withdraw the suit. Citing Section 33(5) of the IBC, the court ruled that any suit seeking to disrupt the Liquidator's proceedings or the IBC provisions is prohibited by law. Therefore, the civil suit filed by Mr. John was quashed.Furthermore, the judgment highlighted the seriousness of any potential obstruction caused by Mr. John to the Liquidator's possession, warning that such actions could lead to criminal consequences. The Liquidator reported threats and obstruction by Mr. John, prompting the court to direct the Superintendent of Police to provide necessary security to the Liquidator and take penal action against Mr. John, including his arrest, to ensure the Liquidator's safety. The application to quash the civil suit was allowed, with other matters listed for a future date.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
