TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India Pvt Ltd (in short "Ericsson") u/s 9 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for having defaulted in paying Ericsson to the services rendered by it in terms of Managed Services Agreement (MSA) dated 25.01.2013 entered between these group of companies/Corporate debtors (collectively addressed as "Reliance"), in view of the same, Ericsson filed these Company Petitions for the ascertained claim made against each of these corporate debtors, for they collectively failed to pay Rs. 9,78,72,06,974 - the dues admittedly outstanding as on 31.03.2017, henceforth Ericsson filed separate company petitions against each of these three Reliance Companies for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution process against RITL (CP1385/2017) for defaulted in paying Rs. 427,21,40,509, against RTL (CP1386/2017) for defaulted in paying Rs. 114,54,46,238, against RCom (CP1387/2017) for defaulted in paying Rs. 436,96,20,227 as on 31.03.2017. 2. Knowing well the Corporate Debtors not being common in these petitions, the facts and reliefs in respect to each of the companies are dealt with separately, but the submissions in these three Company Petitions being common, for the sake of brevity, this Bench....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k for wireless, maintaining the optical fibre network and managing passive infrastructure of towers, shelters and generators,, Reliance having Tele-communication infrastructure such as towers and optic fibre network across India, to manage services to it, Reliance entered into the MSA with Ericsson on 25.1.2013 for availing the Managed Services aforementioned, in pursuance thereof, according to Ericsson, it deployed thousands of employees for rendering services as agreed between the Ericsson and Reliance. 9. According to Ericsson, the revenue basically generated from this business from the subscribers of Corporate Debtors/telecom operators for using voice or data services- the subscribers use the services and pay to mobile operators for using the telecom services. In India, this business is mainly based on prepaid market because the subscribers pay to the operator in advance to use the services of mobile operator whereas other class of subscribers which are post paid subscribers generally pay the bills within 15 to 20 days of the billing cycle on monthly basis. 10. Business in between them went well for about three years, but for the last almost two years, Reliance kept on re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted and Reliance Infratel Limited having their registered office at H-Block, 1st Floor, Dhirubhani Ambani Knowledge City, Koperkhairne, Navi Mumbai - 400 710 for and on behalf of both the entities hereby undertake (notwithstanding anything to the contrary that may have been discussed otherwise or stipulated in the MSA) as under: 1. To make the monthly payment for the services rendered by Ericsson under the MSA from April 1, 2017. In addition to the foregoing, will pay a minimum amount of Rs. 62 Crs (Rupees Sixty two Crores Only) per month commencing from April 1, 2017 for the previous outstanding amounts; and 2. To unconditionally clear all outstanding payments no later than September 20th 2017 payable under the MSA. Reliance Communications Ltd Reliance infratel Limited Sd Sd Authorised Signatory Authorised Signatory Date December 28, 2016 Place: Mumbai, India" 12. In its regular exercise, Reliance sent a letter dated 28.04.2017 to Ericsson stating that as per their books as on 31.03.2017, the due and outstanding payable to Ericsson is Rs. 978,72,06,974, with a breakup - Ericsson RCom Reconciliation statement as on 31....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Books 4,185,467,870 1,123,293,968 5,178,957,383 10,487,719,220 2.2 Cheques issued by RCOM to be accounted by Ericsson 1,100,000,000 -1,100,000,000 3 Diff. 184,152,357 22,152,271 193,183,126 399,487,753 4 Reconciliation 4.1 TDS Not Accounted by Ericsson 83,588,965 15,938,462 100,988,193 200,515,620 4.2 WCT Not Accounted by Ericsson 840,980 336,392 504,588 1,681,960 4.3 ST on SRiR/GRIR Not Accounted by RCOM Group 14,723 1,034,584 1,049,307 4.4 ST on SEM Not Accounted by RCOM Group 82,456,071 19,018,064 36,085,065 137,559,200 4.5 Invoice pertaining to Mar '17 accounting done in Apr '17 by Ericsson -350,101,382 -48,602,728 -276,652,163 -675,356,273 4.6 Reconciliation Pending -951,714 -8,842,460 55,143,392 -64,937,567 5 Sub Total -184,152,357 -22,152,271 -193,183,126 -399,487,753 6 - - - 0 12. When all t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard, we have taken deleveraging initiatives and made substantial progress with respect to the announced strategic transactions. 1. Combination of the Wireless business with Aircel .......................... 2. Sale of Tower Assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . As you will observe from the above, the completion of the two major transactions is mere procedural in nature. We are confident to complete the transactions by September 30, 2017. Way forward Firstly, we are thankful to your client for their continued support and co operation and we also appreciate their patience. Reliance has been equally understanding of the stressful situation in which the contract is working. The deferred payments are accruing interest as stipulated in the contract Ericsson's managed services performance has been inconsistent and there is significant scope for improvement However, we continue to recognise the reasonable effort being put instead of strict enforcement. We reiterate our willingness to remain in constant communication with your client for effective resolution of all the pending matters and put a workable fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el Limitted ("Reliance') for payment of outstanding dues under Managed Services Contract dated 25th Jan 2013. 1. From July onwards, we are moving to weekly advance payments as agreed i.e. Rs. 14 Cr per week. Please consider this run rate as proforma which may change pending any optimization or divesture initiatives which we expect to complete by 30"' Sep 2017. 2. On the June and July payments to clear April and May backlog, we are to pay R.125 Cr. We have duly signed an agreement with Reliance Jio for the same of MCNs for Rs. 211 Cr, which provides more than sufficient cash to meet that commitment. As part of our ongoing Strategic Debt restructuring programme, out Lenders held a meeting on Friday, 23rd June, 2017, wherein they have advised us, for the first time that any sale of property needs their specific prior approval. We have immediately made the formal request and expect to receive the approval within a week to 10 days, and will accordingly pay Rs. 125 Cr well before 31st July, 2017. You will appreciate that this requirement of specific approval has suddenly been imposed by the lenders, and could not have been anticipated by us earlier, but this will not di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, some particulars of payments are given saying that they have not been considered in the notice dated 07.05.2017. But it appears that Reliance included some payments which were already covered in the confirmation made by Reliance itself basing on their books, moreover in all their letters it has been clearly mentioned that they would make payments to the months subsequent to 315t March 2017 as well. 15. When payment has not come as assured by Reliance, since Ericsson continued incurring expenditure in rendering services to these Corporate Debtors, finally on 7th September 2017,in terms of clause 23.5.1 of the MSA issued notice for termination of the MSA to these three Corporate Debtors and also to Reliance Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. and Netigen Engineering Pvt. Ltd. stating that Reliance committed material breach of the MSA by not paying old payment as well as to the running period, by which the due outstanding increasing from time to time, Ericsson therefore has expressed, it is not commercially viable to render its services any more to the Corporate Debtors, and if payment is not made within 30 days from the receipt of the notice dated 07.09.2017, this notice shall be treated a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PC, the appellants being the secured creditors of the assets of the Corporate Debtors, it has been held that the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to effect the rights and remedies of the third party/secured creditors in the course of determining disputes pending before it, in addition to the aforesaid holding, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the secured creditors will proceed against the assets of the debtors in accordance with law. Besides this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the said order will not affect any of the remedies of either of the parties, Ericsson being a party to the proceeding it is equally applicable to Ericsson as well. By holding as above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that it has not gone into any other issue except the validity of the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. This order was passed on 05.04.2018. 16. Now the uphill task before this Bench is to decide these cases in the backdrop of the historical facts, to fulfil its task, this Bench has first briefed facts of each of the petitions, then common discussion, thereafter conclusion of this Bench. CP 1385/2017 against RITL 17. It i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Managed Services from MSP (Ericsson) on the same price, terms and conditions as set forth in the MSA" by further detailing that this deed of adherence binds RTL to the MSA entered into with the Ericsson. When this, RTL also like remaining two Corporate Debtors defaulted in making payment, Reliance as stated above sent the confirmation letter on 28.4.2017 confirming that as on 31.03.17 the Corporate Debtors' book disclose the due outstanding against RTL is Rs. 114,54,46,238, since the correspondence in between Ericsson and Reliance being common giving assurance after assurance asking Ericsson to remain patient,, for the sake of brevity, the discussion above made is not repeated because common assurance has been given for payment of entire Rs. l,012crores the same narration given above is applicable to this case as well. 22. Ericsson has, like in other cases, given separate notice u/s 8 of IBC to RTLfor payment of Rs. 114,54,46,238 and also to inform if at all any dispute is in existence in respect to unpaid operational debt within 10 days of receipt of section 8 notice, to which, the Corporate Debtor has given common reply dated 19.05.2017 asking Ericsson to remain patient for s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from 04.08.2017 to 15.12.2017. Finally, when due outstanding has not been paid, on 11.09.2017 Ericsson filed this Company Petition u/s 9 of IBC against this Corporate Debtor on the admitted claim basing on the confirmation sent by this Corporate Debtor to Ericsson on 28.04.2017. Common Discussion 27. On the Company Petitions filed by Ericsson, the counsel appearing on behalf of these Corporate Debtors i.e. Reliance placed their arguments saying that this petition is not in compliance with this Code, therefore, not maintainable - Form 3 notice has not been provided with the particulars as envisaged in the form, Form 5 petition is incomplete and that the Company Petition consists of material discrepancies and this petition is hit by existence of dispute. They further submit that these petitions are against the object of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code depriving the interest of all the stakeholders of Reliance, hence these Company Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 28. SBI filed MA 418/2018 in CP 1387/2017 u/s 60(5) of IBC r/w Rule 11, 14 and 34 of IMCLT Rules 2016, stating that this applicant Bank and 28 other banks (jointly referred as secured creditors) have granted va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n hearing the submissions of either side, the points for consideration before this Bench are principally four, which are as follows: 1. Whether the debt is in existence or not? 2. Whether occurrence of default is there or not? 3. Whether any dispute is in existence as on the date of receipt of section 8 notice by these Corporate Debtors. 4. Whether these petitions are complete as envisaged u/s 9 of IBC or not? 31. Though the point raised by SBI is not essential to decide this Company Petition, still for the sake of completeness, the application filed by one of the financial creditors namely SBI is also taken into consideration for determination of the point mentioned below: 5. Whether SBI/Financial Creditors have any locus to file an application before this Bench, if so, whether any merit is there as against the petitions filed under IBC. 1. Whether the debt is in existence or not? 32. This point need not be a point for discussion if the bare-bones of the facts are set against the legal proposition in respect to section 8 and 9 are taken into consideration, still the debt being huge and the Corporate Debtors being large companies, by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccurrence of default is there or not? 36. As to this point is concerned, the counsel for Reliance have come out with a unique argument saying that for schedule for payment has been rescheduled after issual of section 8 notice, the default that was in existence as on the date of receipt of section 8 notice would not survive for filing these company petitions. If we revisit the facts, it is evident that no schedule was given for payment by Reliance, section 8 notices have been given basing on non payment of dues as per the balance confirmation given by Reliance on 28.04.2017, there is no schedule, or reschedule, of course Reliance sent several request letters with break up charts to instil confidence so that Ericsson would not proceed against Reliance, ultimately when nothing happening as assured by Reliance, ultimately on 11.09.2017, Ericsson filed these cases against Reliance. Therefore today there is material before us making it clear that Ericsson gave section 8 notice on 07.05.2017 thereafter on 19.05.2017 Reliance gave reply saying that these companies are under stress because of various reasons, whereby Reliance requested Ericsson to remain patient for they were likely to r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntering into new contract. Here the basic document for commencement of jural relationship is MSA, in that MSA itself there is a clause (24.1) saying that any alteration or modification to MSA will arise only when a new instrument has been entered into between the parties. Since no such instrument has been executed, it can never be called as novation. Moreover, mere assurance or promise of clearing liability by one party to other party can never become a novation, therefore, this novation argument propounded by the counsel of Corporate Debtors is no doubt novation but bereft of any merit. In view of the aforesaid reason, the default in making repayment has remained the same till date as before, therefore, this Bench hereby holds that Ericsson has proved that not only debt is in existence but also the default. 3. Whether any dispute is in existence as on the date of receipt of section 8 notice by these Corporate Debtors? 41. Since it is a point to be proved by the corporate debtors, I must say what argument the Counsel on behalf of the corporate debtors have canvassed to say that this case is hit by existence of dispute. 42. The Senior Counsel Mr U.K. Choudary appearing on b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the legislature nor has it so been intended. We have also seen that one of the objects of the Code qua operational debts is to ensure that the amount of such debts, which is usually smaller than that of financial debts, does not enable operational creditors to put the corporate debtor into the insolvency resolution process prematurely or initiate the process for extraneous considerations. It is for this reason that it is enough that a dispute exists between the parties. In Re Morris Catering (Australia) Pty Ltd (1993) 11 ACSR 601 at 605, Thomas } said: "There is little doubt that Div 3 is intended to be a complete code which prescribes a formula that requires the court to assess the position between the parties, and preserve demands where it can be seen that there is no genuine dispute and no sufficient genuine offsetting claim That is not to say that the court will examine the merits or settle the dispute. The specified limits of the court's examination are the ascertainment of whether there is a 'genuine dispute' and zvhether there is a 'genuine claim'. It is often possible to discern the spurious, and to identify mere bluster or assertion. But beyond a p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arbitration proceedings pending or not. 45. To know exactly what dispute was pending between Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd and Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd., we must know the material facts of that case as against the facts of the present case, so that it will become easy to come out of this artificially manifested riddle set out by the corporate debtors. 46. In Mobilox, the appellant (the corporate debtor) was engaged by Star TV for conducting tele-voting for the program of "Nach Baliye" program on Star TV, which in turn the corporate debtor subcontracted the work to the operational creditor by issuing purchase orders between October and December, 2013 in favour of the creditor. In the "Nach Baliye" program, the successful dancer was to be selected on various bases, including viewers' votes. For this purpose, the creditor was to provide toll free telephone numbers across India, through which, the viewers of the program could cast their votes in favour of one or more participants. For this purpose, software was customized by the creditor, who then coordinated the results and provided them to the debtor. Since the creditor obtained toll free numbers from telephone operators in ter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the default payment being disputed by the Corporate Debtor, for the petitioner has admitted that the notice of dispute dated 27thDecember 2016 has been received by the operational creditor, the claim made by the Petitioner is hit by Section (9)(5)(ii)(d) of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, hence this Petition is hereby rejected." On which, the Honorable National Company Law Appellate Tribunal decided the appeal on 24th May 2017, which is as follows: "39. In the present case, the adjudicating authority has acted mechanically and rejected the application under sub-section (5) (ii) (d) of Section 9 without examining and discussing the aforesaid issue. If the adjudicating authority would have noticed the provisions as discussed above and what constitutes 'dispute' in relation to services provided by operational creditors then it would have come to a conclusion that condition of demand notice under sub-section (2) of Section 8 has not been fulfilled by the corporate debtor and the defense claiming dispute was not only vague, got up and motivated to evade the liability. 40. For the reasons aforesaid we set aside the impugned order dated 27.1.2017 passed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that to finalize the time and place for a meeting, it would like to follow up payment which is long stuck up. On 28.6.2016, Mobilox wrote to Kirusa again to finalize time and place, thereafter when no response came to the aforesaid email, Mobilox then fired the last shot on 19.09.2016 reiterating that no payments are due as the NDA was breached. 49. Soon after giving all this factual matrix, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone ahead saying that the demand notice sent by Kirusa was disputed in detail by Mobilox in its reply dated 27.12.2016 setting out the details of the email dated 30.01.2015. 50. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not decided Mobilox case on the ground that operational debt is not on equal footing to the financial debt, the ground for upholding the order of NCLT is that the corporate debtor disputed Kirusa putting out in its website that it has been working for Star TV way back in the month of January 2015, ever since the said dispute was brewing in between the parties by shooting emails against each other, it is not that Mobilox was for the first time mentioned in its reply notice to section 8 notice that Kirusa violated NDA, by the time Mobilox received notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Code qua operational debts is to ensure that the amount of such debts, which is usually smaller than the financial debts, does not enable the operational creditors to put the corporate debtor into the insolvency resolution process prematurely or initiate the process for extraneous consideration, it is for this reason that it is enough that a dispute exists between the parties". With all humility. I have to say that this sentence has no bearing on the issue decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, at the outset I would say that it is not the ratio decidendi to be followed from Mobilox. The only point decided in Mobilox is the disjunctive word "and" is to be read as conjunctive "or". It has been replaced with the word "or" so as to say that if any pre-existing dispute is there even if suit or arbitration proceeding is not pending then also it could be taken as a ground for dismissal of section 9 petition. A sentence from any context should not be taken out and given an isolated reading making remaining text irrelevant, With all responsibility I state that obiter will not prevail over the statutory provisions, as to operational debt claims, in water fall mechanism it is shown ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rted by evidence. The defence is not spurious, mere bluster, plainly frivolous or vexatious. A dispute does truly exist in fact between the parties, which may or may not ultimately succeed, and the Appellate Tribunal was wholly incorrect in characterizing the defense as vague, got-up and motivated to evade liability. 46. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, argued that the breach of the NDA is a claim for unliquidated damages which does not become crystallized until legal proceedings are filed, and none have been filed so far. The period of limitation for filing such proceedings has admittedly not yet elapsed. Further, the appellant has withheld amounts that were due to the respondent under the NDA till the matter is resolved. Admittedly, the matter has never been resolved. Also, the respondent itself has not commenced any legal proceedings after the e-mail dated 30th January, 2015 except for the present insolvency application, which was filed almost 2 years after the said e-mail. All these circumstances go to show that it is right to have the matter tried out in the present case before the axe falls". 57. By looking into these two paras, it co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e itself said so and so amount is due and outstanding, without seeking verification or saying a word against it, Ericsson made claim basing on the confirmation given by Reliance on 28.04.2017 to the balance outstanding as on 31.03.2017, therefore no dispute over claim amount, hence it will not fall under clause (a). If we come to second clause i.e. the quality of goods or services, it has nowhere been mentioned at any point of time from 25.01.2013 till date that the services provided by Ericsson are of inferior quality or not up to the mark as mentioned in the MSA entered in between them, therefore no dispute could be said as falling under this clause as well. 61. The next clause that is taken as trump card for their argument is the breach of representation or warranty, this termination notice was given by Ericsson on 07.09.2017 i.e. far after Reliance gave reply to section 8 notice stating that they would make arrangement for making payment with several break-up liquidation charts, so it is clear that till the date termination notice was given to Reliance, at least for the sake of assumption, there was no breach, no violation of warranty. In fact, ex facie it appears that Relia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y much clear that the admitted debt refers to the claim mentioned in the IBC petitions. In any event, this proceeding will not have any bearing on IBC to say that dispute is in existence; because this is a proceeding invoked by Reliance on 01.11.2017 i.e. subsequent to filing IBC proceedings, disputing the termination notice. It is not even the case of Reliance the claim in the IBC has been disputed before Arbitral Tribunal. It is often being said by Reliance counsel that Arbitral Tribunal has mentioned that there is dispute between Reliance and Ericsson without looking into its entirety to find out as to whether this Reliance raised any dispute in respect to this claim as mentioned u/s 5(6) of the Code. 65. When we read section 5(6) it speaks only about disputes, as to understand existence of such disputes, it is imperative to read section 8 of the Code, which is as follows: "8. Insolvency resolution by operational creditor - (1) An operational creditor may, on the occurrence of a default, deliver a demand notice of unpaid operational debtor copy of an invoice demanding payment of the amount involved in the default to the corporate debtor in such form and manner as may....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice also, it has been categorically mentioned that the notice has been given under clause 23.5.1 of MSA giving 30-days' notice for termination as envisaged under the MSA, upon which both the parties all along relied upon. Therefore, for any reason, Reliance simply saying that "Ericsson's managed services performance has been inconsistent and there is significant scope for improvement" will not amount to a dispute and it pales into insignificance, this sentence, instead of reading it by taking it out of the context reading it, if it is read it in entirety, the letter dated 19.05.2017 is nothing but an appeal to Ericsson to remain waiting for further time for receipt of their money. 67. For the reasons afore stated that there is no dispute in existence in respect to the claim Ericsson raised, on the top of it, the facts upon which the ratio held in Mobilox is no way applicable to the facts of this case henceforth, this bench hereby holds that no dispute has arisen at any point of time by Reliance nor is any dispute in existence at any point of time. 68. At the cost of repetition, let us revisit the facts relevant to this argument, the counsel says for an Arbitration dispute h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence in respect to this claim amount before receipt of notice u/s 8, in all respects the petitioner is entitled to file petitions, therefore it has filed petitions. Moreover, Ericsson has filed this application in the form as prescribed under Adjudicating Authority Rules by filling all the columns as prescribed in the said form, when it comes to sub section 3 of section 9, Ericsson filed invoices along with rejoinder, the requisite of filing invoices normally will arise to prove that the said money demanded is to be paid by the corporate debtors, this requisite will become essential so long as the corporate debtors have not admitted the claims mentioned in the petitions. Here in fact the corporate debtors themselves confirmed the claim amount taking out from their books as on 31.03.2017. In a scenario like this, filing or non-filing of invoices will become irrelevant because the claims have been categorically admitted by Reliance. It is not the case of Ericsson that seeking confirmation to the claim amount has not been given by Reliance, it is not the case of Reliance that these claims not payable to Ericsson, it is also not the case of Reliance that these claims are not in default....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Corporate Debtors not accounted for cannot become reason for dismissal of these Company Petitions, however, Ericsson has dealt with each of the payments saying that has been adjusted by the Corporate Debtors themselves, therefore we have not found any merit in this argument. 5. Whether SBI/Financial Creditors have any locus to file an application before this Bench, if so, whether any merit is there as against the petition filed under IBC. 72. Sr. Counsel Mr. Devitre appeared on behalf of consortium of banks led by SBI submits that these petitions should not be admitted because the consortium of banks constituted into JLF in June 2017 in accordance with the guidelines of RBI and as a corrective action plan and it has accepted the proposal of RCom consolidated to opt for an asset monetisation plan and the asset monetisation process was carried under the supervision of an independent high powered bid evaluation committee for debt restructuring by way of an asset monetisation plan for selling the assets of RCom group to RJio, so that these secured financial creditors i.e. banks would at least recover more than Rs. 28,000 crores through asset monetisation of RCom group (a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said by various NCLT Benches and by Hon'ble NCLAT saying that JLF proceeding will not have any bearing on IBC proceedings, in fact, in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank case ((2018) 1SCC 407) also there was a contention that JLF proceedings pending, likewise in many cases. When it cannot become a contention and when such a plea cannot have any bearing in other cases, how could it become a defence in this case to say that these petitions shall not be admitted because some monetisation process under the supervision of JLF is pending. It need not be said separately that what is sauce for the Goose will become sauce for Gander. In view of this reason, this Bench cannot take any different or innovative approach different from the line that has been followed by Honourable NCLAT and all NCLT Benches. 76. Apart from this, this counsel has raised another contention that Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the interim order passed by Arbitral Tribunal and order affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay stating that the restraint order passed by the Tribunal being in deprivation of the right of the secured creditors, in view of the same Hon'ble Supreme Court, cautiously dealt wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor. (ii) That the supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor, if continuing, shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period. (iii) That the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14 shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator. (iv) That the order of moratorium shall have effect from 15.05.2018 till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or until th....