TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 1377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vek Labs Limited, (which is undergoing liquidation process) under Section 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 questioning the decision of the Liquidator of the respondent company dated 10.12.2018 in rejecting its claim. 2. Brief facts, as narrated by the applicant of the instant application are that the applicant floated two tender notices for procuring medicines for the year 2011-12, dated 03.06.2011 (Tender No. 1) and 2012-13, dated 13.01.2012 (Tender No. 2) and the respondent company was the successful bidder of both the tenders and accordingly, it was granted with the work orders/letter of acceptance for supplying drugs as per the terms of the agreement executed between the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and further directed for payment of interest @ 18% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the arbitration application till actual payment. Both the parties filed objection petitions against the award dated 29.06.2015 under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned trial Court, Jaipur, which was later on transferred to the Commercial Court, Jaipur and by order dated 28.09.2016, the Commercial Court, Jaipur upheld the arbitration award dated 29.06.2015 passed by the Sole Arbitrator. 4. Against the dismissal of the objection petitions, the applicant filed two separate appeals before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan on 29.11.2016 and that the respondent has not filed any appeal a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m of Rs. 6,20,69,043/- as per the judgment dated 10.05.2019 of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan. However, the Liquidator of the respondent company vide the impugned decision dated 10.12.2018 rejected the claim of the applicant inter alia, on the ground that the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 10.05.2018 basing on which, the applicant made its claim, was passed during the period of moratorium and hence contrary to the provisions of Section 14 of the Code. Hence, the instant CA. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent company and perused the pleadings on record carefully. 9. Admittedly, the CIRP proceedings in respect of the respondent company were initiated and moratori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; (b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; (c) 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 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; (d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor. (2) The supply of essen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he effect of Section 14(1)(a) is that the arbitration that has been instituted after the aforesaid moratorium is non-est in law." 13. In Anand Rao Korada, Resolution Professional Vs. Varsha Fabrics Private Limited - Civil Appeal No. 8800-8801 of 2019 dated 18.11.2019 - 2019 SCC Online SC 1508, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India set aside the interim orders of Odisha High Court allowing auction of the assets of the corporate debtor during the moratorium period, however, allowed writ petitioner-Workers Union, to prefer its claim as per the Code and Regulations. 14. No one can also claim ignorance of existence of moratorium to sustain the orders passed or actions taken during the moratorium period. The Hon'ble National Company La....