2021 (3) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3rd February, 2021. Nobody appeared for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 23rd February, 2021. We had then posted this matter for today i.e. 25th February, 2021. Even today there is nobody present on behalf of Respondents. 2. The Present Appeal arises out of Order dated 04th December, 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, Court-2. In I.A. No. 769 of 2020 in CP (IB) No. 107/NCLT/AHM/2019. 3. The Appellant-Liquidator had moved the Adjudicating Authority with a prayer to pass directions upon Respondent No. 2 to defreeze the Account No. 08432090000149 held in the name of the Corporate Debtor - M/s. Brew Berry Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. at Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.- the Respondent No. 2.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... any matter as per law so provided by the parliament. In view of that, the instant application is not maintainable and the liquidator is at liberty to approach before the competent authority to redress his grievance(s). Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed, as not maintainable." The Appellant has thus filed the present Appeal. 5. The Appeal claims and it is argued that with regard to the Corporate Debtor, CIRP started on 29th May, 2019. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Liquidator says that the same Liquidator was Resolution Professional in the same CIRP and the Respondent No. 1 had filed claim in the CIRP for amount which was processed and accepted. The Company however subsequently could not get Resolution Plan and t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Tax versus Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. in SLP Civil No. 6483 of 2018 ( (2018) 18 SCC 786) (Annexure- I page 53) where Hon'ble Supreme Court in Order dated 10th August, 2018 observed as under: " Heard. Delay, if any, is condoned. Given Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it is obvious that the Code will override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including the Income-Tax Act. We may also refer in this connection to Dena Bank Vs. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh and C. & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 694 and its progeny, making it clear that income-tax dues, being in the nature of Crown debts, do not take precedence even over secured creditors, who are private persons. We are of the view that the High Cou....