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>Arbitration proceedings cannot be split between parties under moratorium and others under Section 96 IB Code</h1> <h3>Tata Capital Limited Versus Geeta Passi, Sanjay Passi Haryana and Sharuk Passi New Delhi.</h3> Tata Capital Limited Versus Geeta Passi, Sanjay Passi Haryana and Sharuk Passi New Delhi. - TMi Issues Involved:1. Validity of the arbitrator's order to keep proceedings in abeyance due to the moratorium under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IB Code) 2016.2. Applicability of moratorium provisions under Section 96 of the IB Code to the arbitration proceedings.3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with arbitral orders.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Arbitrator's Order to Keep Proceedings in Abeyance:The petition challenged the arbitrator's order dated 07.10.2022, which kept the arbitration proceedings in abeyance due to the moratorium under Section 95 of the IB Code 2016. The arbitrator's decision was based on the moratorium affecting the debts owed by Mr. Tarun Kapoor, the proprietor of Sterling Motor Company (SMC), and one of the guarantors, Smt. Pavan Kapoor. The petitioner argued that the moratorium should not apply to the legal heirs of the original respondent No. 4, Shri B.L. Passi, and that the arbitration should continue against them. However, the court found that the moratorium under Section 96 of the IB Code covers the entire debt, irrespective of whether the liability is of a guarantor or principal borrower.2. Applicability of Moratorium Provisions Under Section 96 of the IB Code:The petitioner contended that the moratorium granted by the NCLT should only favor Mr. Tarun Kapoor and Smt. Pavan Kapoor, and not extend to other respondents. The court referred to the definition of 'debt' under Section 3(11) of the IB Code and clarified that the moratorium applies to 'all the debts' and 'any debt' of the personal guarantor. The court emphasized that the moratorium under Section 96 is debt-centric and not debtor-centric, meaning it covers the entire debt irrespective of the parties involved. The court cited precedents, including SBI vs. V. Ramakrishnan and Anr. and Dilip B. Jiwrajka vs. Union of India, to support its interpretation that the moratorium under Section 96 stays legal proceedings in respect of the debt, not the debtor.3. Jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution:The respondent argued that the petition was not maintainable under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution and should be challenged under Section 34 or 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act (A & C Act). The court referred to several precedents, including SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineer Ltd., Deep Industries Ltd. vs. ONGC, and Bhaven Construction vs. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd., which established that the High Court's writ jurisdiction is limited to cases of perversity or patent illegality. The court concluded that the arbitrator's order did not exhibit any perversity or patent illegality and thus, the petition was not maintainable.Conclusion:The court held that the moratorium under Section 96 of the IB Code applies to the entire debt, affecting all parties involved in the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator's decision to stay the proceedings was not perverse or patently illegal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the court affirmed the arbitrator's order to keep the arbitration proceedings in abeyance during the moratorium period. The petitioner's request to vacate the order was also rejected.
TaxTMI 