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>Defendant's Counterclaim Allowed to Proceed with Plaintiff's Suit for Fair Trial</h1> <h3>SSMP INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus PERKAN FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD.</h3> SSMP INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus PERKAN FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. - TMI Issues:Interpretation of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in a recovery suit involving a counter claim.Analysis:1. The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking recovery of a specific amount, while the Defendant filed a counter claim asserting its entitlement to a different sum. The Plaintiff has entered insolvency, leading to the question of whether the adjudication of the counter claim should be stayed under Section 14 of the Code.2. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's claim is intertwined with the suit and should be adjudicated together. The Plaintiff relies on previous judgments to support the contention that both claims should be heard concurrently by the Court, rather than the Defendant approaching the Resolution Professional for recovery.3. The Defendant's counter claim states that it is not liable to pay the Plaintiff, but instead, the Plaintiff owes the Defendant a significant sum due to breaches by the Plaintiff.4. The Court notes the uncertainty regarding the amounts payable by either party and the interlinked nature of the claims. It emphasizes that the outcome of the suit and counter claim is unpredictable at this stage.5. Referring to a previous judgment, the Court explains that Section 14(1)(a) of the Code does not apply to all proceedings, especially those that do not endanger the assets of the corporate debtor.6. The judgment clarifies that proceedings must have a direct impact on the corporate debtor's assets to fall under the moratorium of Section 14(1)(a) of the Code.7. Citing a similar case, the NCLAT held that claims and counter claims should be heard together unless the counter claim is determined, ensuring a fair adjudication process.8. The Court considers the entirety of the claims, defenses, and counter claim to determine liability. It acknowledges that a counter claim is a proceeding against the corporate debtor but highlights the integral relationship between the Plaintiff's suit and the Defendant's counter claim.9. The Court emphasizes the need for comprehensive adjudication by the same forum to avoid conflicting views on the same transaction. It argues that staying the counter claim prematurely could burden the NCLT/RP with uncertain claims.10. Consequently, the Court decides that the counter claim should proceed alongside the suit for a fair trial, scheduling the next hearing for the Plaintiff's evidence.This thorough analysis of the judgment highlights the complexities involved in interpreting Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the need for a comprehensive adjudication process in cases involving intertwined claims and counter claims.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
