TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 ('2016 Rules'), for imposing moratorium prior to the admission of the main petition i.e. CP (IB) No. 392/Chd/HP/2018 ('CP') and directing the respondent-corporate debtor not to withdraw/utilize/dispose of the amount of Rs. 40 Crores that would be deposited in its account. 2. It is stated that the petitioner-financial creditor has filed CP under Section 7 of the Code and after issuance of notice, the respondent appeared before this Tribunal on 06.02.2019 and sought time to file the reply. The respondent-corporate debtor after much delay filed its reply and thereafter, the applicant also filed its rejoinder. The CP is now listed for hearing/arguments on 05.09.2019. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C) 4898-4904 of 2018 along with Civil Appeal No. 12136 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) 4871 of 2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. In pursuance of the said orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, CWP No. 2274/2017 was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. 4. It is also submitted that subsequently, the respondent-corporate debtor had moved an application in the abovementioned CWP for returning back of the amount of Rs. 40 Crores, however, the Hon'ble High Court declined the said relief and instead transferred the said amount to DRT-III, Chandigarh and ordered DRT-III, Chandigarh to decide the original application ('OA') filed by the applicant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, hence, the instant CA. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent and have carefully perused the record. 8. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that in view of order dated 17.07.2019 passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 664 of 2019; NUI Pulp and Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Roxcel Trading GMBH (Annexure A-3), by the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, that this Adjudicating Authority can impose moratorium under Section 14 of the Code even before the CP is admitted. The Adjudicating Authority can also pass any other order under Rule 11 of the 2016 Rules by invoking its inherent powers for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. In that case, the deposit was made to maintain an appeal before the DRAT and it was specifically held that the amount representing such deposit was neither a 'secured asset' nor a 'secured debt' which could be proceeded against and that the appellant before DRAT was entitled to refund of the amount so deposited. The submission that the bank had general lien over such deposit in terms of Section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872 was rejected as the money was not with the bank but with the DRAT. In the instant case also, the money was expressly to be treated to be with the Registry of the High Court. On the strength of the law laid down by this Court in Axis Bank 3, in our ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l or for meeting the ends of justice, it is always open to the Tribunal to pass appropriate interim order. 11. The Respondent- 'Operational Creditor' had issued Demand Notice under Section 8(1) and after receipt of the reply under Section 8(2), informed that the 'Corporate Debtor' has not made payment, filed an application under Section 9. It was at this stage, the 'Operational Creditor' brought to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) that there is an apprehension that the 'Corporate Debtor' may abuse the process of the 'I&B Code' to deny the creditors from its legitimate rights if admission of the application under Section 9. 12. The Appellant having not given ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntial period and is now listed for admission/hearing on 05.09.2019. It is also to be seen that the Hon'ble Apex Court, vide its judgment dated 20.08.2019 categorically directed that the amount deposited by the respondent be returned to it within two weeks along with interest, if any, accrued thereon. The order now passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal is in compliance of the said order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, the applicant cannot retain the said amount with it and it should credit/transfer the said amount to the account of the respondent-corporate debtor, as per the above referred orders. 14. It has been submitted by the applicant-bank that the respondent-corporate debtor and its Directors owe approximately Rs. 325.52 Cror....