AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ates ORDER Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority by which an application filed under Section 9 by the Appellant has been rejected. The Appellant has issued a notice under Section 8 on 13.01.2022 after the said notice under Section 8, application under Section 9 was filed claiming an amount of Rs. 5,59,81,925/-. 3. The application came for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority, Adjudicating Authority choose not to issue notice on the application and dismissed the application holding it to be barred under Section 10A. 4. A perusal of the materials brought on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held that part IV of the application refers to default occurred from July 2020 during which period initiation of CIRP was suspended, hence, the application is barred by Section 10A. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contends that a perusal of the part IV of the application does indicate that the default and due payments were not only confined to the period covered by Section 10A. 8. Referring to page 81 as extracted above it has been mentioned that default was claim to be occurred on 31.03.2021 as well as 21.10.2022 which dates were obviously beyond the period covered by Section 10A. 9. It is submitted that Adjudicating Authority ought to have examined the matter and at least could have proceeded to conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s hereby clarified that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any default committed under the said sections before 25th March, 2020." 13. However, as observed above the default which is referred to in Part IV were default also of the period subsequent to prohibited period i.e. of March 2021 and October, 2021. A complete reading of the Part IV indicates that claim in the application was both for the period which was covered under the prohibition under Section 10A as well as the period which was beyond the said period. 14. Now coming to the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the embargo for initiation of application under Section 7 & 9 was only for period of one year. The reliance has been placed on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... occurring on or after 25-3-2020; the embargo remaining in force for a period of six months, extendable to one year. Acceptance of the submission of the appellant would defeat the very purpose and object underlying the insertion of Section 10-A. For, it would leave a whole class of corporate debtors where the default has occurred on or after 25-3-2020 outside the pale of protection because the application was filed before 5-6-2020." 15. The aforesaid Judgment had occasion to consider the expression 'shall ever be filed' and the submission which was made by Learned Counsel for the Appellant on Section 10A was expressly rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 16. The submission which was made by the Learned Counsel for the appellant befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....demic. In the present case, it was asserted that the onset of Covid-19, which was the reason for the insertion of Section 10-A, has nothing to do with the default of the respondent to pay the outstanding operational debt of the appellant, which owes its existence even before the onset of the pandemic. Hence, it has been submitted that the event of default (30-4-2020) in the notice of demand cannot be read in isolation. 17. The period of six months or such further period not extending one year from such date as referred to in Section 10A was period during which the protection was to be extended by the statute from initiation of CIRP under Section 7, 9 & 10. 18. There is no support to the submission from the Section 10A that the prohibi....