https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461195 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461195 Application for grant of interim relief - seeking stay execution and operation of the letterof Deputy Director Enforcement Directorate, Nagpur and undated notice sent by Assistant Director to the tenants of Empress Mall, Nagpur for payment of lease amount to Deputy Director, Enforcement, Kolkata - Entitlement to the benefit under Section 32 A of the Code. Application for grant of interim relief - HELD THAT:- The notice was sent to the shopkeepers for deposit of lease amount to the respondents. An application was earlier moved by the appellant before the NCLT, which was dismissed by a detailed order. The appeal thereupon was filed but has been dismissed by NCLAT by its order dated 3rd January, 2022. Therein similar prayer was made by the appellant. The application was dismissed after recording finding that Resolution Plan has not been approved by the Adjudicating Authority, under Section 31 of the Code of 2016. In view of the above, the claim of the appellant was not found tenable in reference to Section 32A of the Code of 2016. The appellant suppressed aforesaid fact while moving application before this Tribunal in reference to the same property and almost for similar relief. The appellant has thus not approached this Tribunal with clean hands while maintaining the application. It is when the orders of NCLT and NCLAT are prior in time to the application for interim relief. The conduct of the appellant itself is sufficient to deny interim relief in reference to it. Entitlement to the benefit under Section 32 A of the Code - HELD THAT:- The prayer in reference to Section 31 and 32 A of the Code of 2016 was made even before the NCLT and NCLAT. It was not accepted finding that Insolvency Resolution has not been approved as yet by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the Code of 2016 rather same is still pending. The appellant was thus not found entitled to the benefit under Section 32 A of the Code of 2016. While pursuing the case before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur, the fact regarding possession of the property by the ED on 10.11.2021 was not disclosed and brought to the notice of the Court which is reflected from the order. The information about the possession could not have been furnished by the learned ASG on the first date of hearing in absence of necessary instructions at that stage - the prayer of the appellant for grant of interim order ignoring the possession of the property with the ED cannot be accepted and no interim order against it. Conclusion - i) The appellant s failure to disclose prior judgments and possession status constituted a lack of clean hands, precluding the grant of interim relief. ii) Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was inapplicable as the resolution plan had not been approved by the Adjudicating Authority. The application for interim relief dismissed and it is directed that the Mall property be maintained by the respondents - Let the appeal be posted now on16.10.2023 for further proceedings. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 24 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530