TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 781
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 by M/s. Agarwal Agencies (P) Limited & Others claiming to be the Financial Creditors seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s. Dove Infrastructure (P) Limited, the Corporate Debtor. 2. The Applicants have filed the present Application under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 on the basis of the recovery certificate passed in their favour by the District Magistrate, Faridabad under the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013. 3. The matter was listed before this Tribunal on 27.5.2022 for hearing on the question of issuance of notice to the respondent. 4. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and 07.8.2018 against the Developer/Corporate Debtor, its Directors, Representative and other officials. 7. It is submitted that the District Magistrate issued a certificate of recovery in favour of the Financial Creditors to recover the Assured Investment along with interest. 8. It is submitted by the Applicant that the CIRP against the Developers Company i.e. M/s. ABW Infrastructure Limited has already been instituted by the NCLT Delhi, in which, the present Applicant/Financial Creditors have filed their respective case. 9. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate for the Applicant relied upon the Judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DENA BANK (Now Bank of Baroda) vs. C. SHIVAKUMAR REDDY AND ANOTHER, reported in Civil ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate Debtor submitted on the contrary that the present Application needs to be dismissed because the Applicant is neither the Financial Creditor nor the respondent is a Corporate Debtor and that the respondent was not a party to the MOU which was executed between M/s. ABW Infrastructure Limited and the present applicant. 12. Mr. Kunal Tandon further contended that no money has been transferred out of the alleged transaction to the respondent and, therefore, the present respondent is not liable to pay any amount to the Applicants. He further contended that the order passed by the District Magistrate is in fact is an order of attachment. In support of his submission, he relied upon Section 4 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Deposit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the financial establishment, or if it transpires that such money or other property or assets, is not available for attachment or are not sufficient for repayment of the deposits, may order attachment of such other property or assets of the said financial establishment or the personal assets of the promoters, partners, directors, managers, members or any other person of the said financial establishment, as the District Magistrate may deem fit." 13. Mr. Kunal Tandon submitted that Section 4 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013 empowers the District Magistrate only to pass an order of attachment but not for recovery of money. Therefore, the order passed by the District Magistrate cannot ....