2020 (10) TMI 1332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to pay the amount within 45 days from the receipt of the impugned order failing which recovery proceedings would be initiated under section 28A of the Act. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal is, that the appellant is a housing finance company, and at present, is undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process. On 20th November, 2019, the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'RBI') suspended the board of directors of the appellant under section 45-IE(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and appointed an administrator to manage the affairs of the company. On 29th November, 2019 RBI filed a Company Petition before the NCLT under Rule 5(a)(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Insolvency and liquidation proceedings of financial service provider and application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2019 to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process against the appellant under the provisions of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The petition was admitted by NCLT by an order of 3rd December, 2019 and the administrator was appointed as the resolution professional. The moratorium provided under section 14 came in force upon the f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed liability and that the instant proceedings are in the nature of determining the liability for the alleged non-compliance of the LODR Regulations and other Rules. For facility, the relevant finding of the adjudicating officer in this regard is extracted hereunder:- "I note from the above observations of the Insolvency Law Committee that a proceeding for assessing or determining the liability is different from a proceeding initiated to recover the assessed or determined liability. The Committee further observes that a moratorium on determination of the liability may not have been the intent of the IBC. Hence, I am of the view that the moratorium declared under section 14 of the IBC will not prevent instant proceeding from determining the liability of the corporate debtor and the moratorium declared under the IBC will be applicable to the enforcement/recovery of the determined liability. I note that the instant adjudication proceedings against the Noticee are in the nature of determining the liability of the Noticee for the alleged non-compliance of relevant provisions of the ILDS Regulations, 2008 and LODR Regulations, 2015 and hence the same can be continued." 7. We have heard....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and moratorium prescribed under section 14 was basically for the creditors and not for the regulators/statutory authorities, namely, the respondent. It was submitted that the proceedings for assessing or determining the liability was different from proceedings initiated to determine the assessed liability. The learned senior counsel contended that the moratorium declared under section 14 of the IBC does not prevent the adjudicating officer from determining the liability of the corporate debtor and that the moratorium declared under IBC would be applicable only to the enforcement/recovery of the determined liability. The learned counsel thus contended that the adjudicating officer had full powers to proceed against the appellant for the purpose of determining the liability for the alleged non- compliance of the ILDS Regulations and the LODR Regulations. In support of his submission the learned senior counsel placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Babu Lal vs. M/s. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal & Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 525 and in P.L. Kantha Rao and Others vs. State of A.P. & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 471 wherein the word 'proceedings' have been explained. 10. Having hear....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ef are that despite a moratorium issued under section 14(1)(a) of the IBC an arbitrator was appointed who entered upon reference and issued notices to the parties. The Supreme Court held :- "4. The mandate of the new Insolvency Code is that the moment an insolvency petition is admitted, the moratorium that comes into effect Under Section 14(1)(a) expressly interdicts institution or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against corporate debtors. 5. This being the case, we are surprised that an arbitration proceeding has been purported to be started after the imposition of the said moratorium and appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act are being entertained. Therefore, we set aside the order of the District Judge dated 6.7.2017 and further state that the effect of Section 14(1)(a) is that the arbitration that has been instituted after the aforesaid moratorium is non est in law." 15. In Rajendra K Bhutta (supra) the Supreme Court while considering the provisions of section 14(1)(d) of the insolvency code held as under:- "However, when it comes to any clash between the MHADA Act and the Insolvency Code, on the plain terms of Section 238 of the Insolvency Code, th....