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>Tribunal orders Respondent to refund debited amount to Corporate Debtor within 30 days</h1> <h3>Punjab National Bank Versus Jailaxmi Sugar Products (Nitali) Pvt Ltd.</h3> Punjab National Bank Versus Jailaxmi Sugar Products (Nitali) Pvt Ltd. - TMI Issues involved:Application seeking declaration of a transaction as illegal during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and seeking refund of the amount debited during CIRP.Analysis:1. Nature of Application: The Application filed by the Resolution Professional sought to declare a transaction as illegal and non-est in law, involving the debiting of a significant amount during the CIRP period. The Applicant requested the Respondent to refund the amount along with interest, citing violation of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.2. Contentions of Applicant: The Applicant argued that the debited amount was transferred to the Respondent's account due to the intervention of the Collector of Usmanabad, contravening the provisions of Section 14 of the Code. The Applicant highlighted the communication with statutory authorities about the ongoing CIRP and requested the reversal of the transaction by the Respondent.3. Respondent's Defense: The Respondent contended that the amount was rightfully collected as statutory dues owed by another entity, Sheelatul Sugar Tech Private Limited, for which the Corporate Debtor had undertaken to pay. The Respondent argued that waiving statutory dues would breach relevant statutes and referred to judgments emphasizing equal treatment of operational and financial creditors.4. Judicial Analysis: The Tribunal analyzed the facts and legal provisions, concluding that the liability was not towards the Corporate Debtor but another entity. Even if the Corporate Debtor was liable, collection during CIRP was prohibited by moratorium under Section 14 of the Code. The Tribunal dismissed the Respondent's reliance on previous agreements and judgments, emphasizing the enforceability of moratorium during CIRP.5. Precedents: The Tribunal referred to various judgments highlighting the strict enforcement of moratorium under Section 14 of the Code, prohibiting recovery by creditors and any actions affecting the assets or legal rights of the Corporate Debtor during CIRP.6. Decision: Considering the violation of Section 14 and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal directed the Respondent to refund the debited amount to the Corporate Debtor within 30 days. The Application was allowed, emphasizing the importance of upholding the moratorium provisions during the CIRP process to protect the interests of all stakeholders.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments, factual context, and the Tribunal's decision, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the case and its implications within the framework of insolvency laws.
TaxTMI 