Tribunal modifies order, balances stakeholders' interests, rejects creditor preference.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, modifying the impugned order by deleting a specific reference but maintaining the removal of attachment on the bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal emphasized the broad scope of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, highlighting the need to balance the interests of all stakeholders, including depositors, and rejecting the notion of allowing one set of creditors to prevail over others.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
2. Applicability of Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
3. Overriding effect of IBC over the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act.
4. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority under IBC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Impugned Order:
The appeals challenge the impugned order dated 15th January 2020, which directed the removal of attachment on the bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor, Namdhari Food International Pvt. Ltd., by the Deputy Collector. The Adjudicating Authority had set aside the attachment order dated 22.10.2018 and directed the Home Secretary of Maharashtra and the Deputy Collector to hand over the assets to the Liquidator. The appellants argued that the Adjudicating Authority did not have the power to set aside a gazette notification passed by an administrative or quasi-judicial body.

2. Applicability of Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC):
The appellants contended that Section 32A of the IBC, which provides immunity to the corporate debtor and its property from prosecution for offences committed prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), was inapplicable. They argued that Section 32A could not be invoked for properties not part of a Resolution Plan or sold as liquidation estate. The Tribunal, however, held that Section 32A provides protection to the property of the Corporate Debtor in relation to an offence committed prior to the commencement of CIRP and includes attachment, seizure, retention, or confiscation of such property under applicable law.

3. Overriding Effect of IBC over MPID Act:
The appellants argued that the MPID Act, enacted under the State List, could not be overridden by the IBC, which is under the Concurrent List. They relied on the judgment in "K.K. Baskaran v. State" to argue that MPID Act has exclusive domain. The Tribunal, however, held that Section 238 of the IBC, which gives the Code an overriding effect, would prevail. The Tribunal noted that the IBC aims to consolidate and amend laws related to insolvency resolution of corporate persons in a time-bound manner for maximization of value of assets and balancing the interests of all stakeholders, including depositors.

4. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority under IBC:
The appellants argued that the Adjudicating Authority under IBC did not have jurisdiction to interfere with the attachment made under the MPID Act. They contended that the Resolution Professional should have approached the MPID Court. The Tribunal, however, held that the Adjudicating Authority under IBC has broad jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) to decide any question of priorities or any question of law or facts arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, modifying the impugned order by deleting the reference to the notification dated 31.03.2017. The rest of the impugned order was maintained, thereby upholding the removal of attachment on the bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal emphasized that the IBC has broader contours and aims to balance the interests of all stakeholders, including depositors, and that letting one set of creditors march over others is not permissible.

---