The SC held that a cash security deposit made before CIRP remained the corporate debtor's property until actual appropriation, and its unilateral adjustment after commencement of CIRP towards pre-CIRP dues violated the moratorium and the pari passu scheme of insolvency law. Because the appellant had no mutual cross-demands justifying set-off and had already lodged its claim in the insolvency process, recovery of those dues had to proceed through that process. The Court also found that no bank guarantee or letter of credit existed; the deposit did not create a security interest or secured creditor status, so authorities on enforcement of such instruments were inapplicable. The deposit could be adjusted only in accordance with the insolvency process and towards post-CIRP dues.
The SC held that a cash security deposit made before CIRP remained the corporate debtor's property until actual appropriation, and its unilateral adjustment after commencement of CIRP towards pre-CIRP dues violated the moratorium and the pari passu scheme of insolvency law. Because the appellant had no mutual cross-demands justifying set-off and had already lodged its claim in the insolvency process, recovery of those dues had to proceed through that process. The Court also found that no bank guarantee or letter of credit existed; the deposit did not create a security interest or secured creditor status, so authorities on enforcement of such instruments were inapplicable. The deposit could be adjusted only in accordance with the insolvency process and towards post-CIRP dues.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
