TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1514
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondent (Original Plaintiff) has instituted a suit against the applicant through Regular Civil Suit No.23 of 2022 ("the Suit") before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division Higanghat, Dist. Wardha, seeking declaration, recovery of possession, eviction, and injunction along with arrears of rent with regards to the property. 4. The respondent filed an application seeking rejection of plain under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of the Civil Procedures, 1908. Through this application, the Civil Judge was informed that, the National Company Law Tribunal, through its order dated 30.08.2021, had initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("the Code") against the applicant Company and had placed the Company under a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code, prohibiting initiation of any sort of proceedings against the Company or recovery of any property that is in possession of the Company during the subsistence of the CIRP. During this period, the CIRP of the applicant Company was resolved and the National Company Law Tribunal gave its approval to a resolution plan submits for revival of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned order needs interference by this Court and also needs to be set aside. 7. Learned Counsel for applicant relied on following citations: 1) Sheenlac Noroo Coatings India Private Ltd. And ors Vs. TATA Steel BSL Limited and Ors. (2020) 157 CLA 39 (Mad) 2) Electrosteel Steel Limited (Now M/s ESL Steel Limited) Vs. ISPAT Carrier Private Limited in Civil Appeal No.2896 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (C) No.15823 of 2023 3) Jaipur Trade Expocentre Private Limited Vs. Metro Jet Airways Training Private Limited, IV (2022) BC 12, (2022) 173 SCL 331 4) Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd Vs. Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. And Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5124. 5) Anand Rao Korada Vs. Varsha Fabrics (P) Ltd. And Ors., AIR 2020 SC 222. 6) RPS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Mukul Kumar and Ors., 2023 (251) AIC 219 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the lower Court and contended that the lower Court has rightly taken into consideration that no prejudice will be caused to the parties if the application is rejected and rightly rejected the application which needs no interference and also needs to be confirmed. 9. Learned Counsel for respondent relied on followi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing of by the Corporate Debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; (c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act); (d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the Corporate Debtor. ..... IV) That the order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of pronouncement of this order till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or until this Bench approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of Section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of Corporate Debtor under Section 33, as the case may be." 12. As such, on perusal of this order, it appears that while admitting this application, prohibited all the items mentioned in paragraph No.10 wherein Clause 1(d), read thus, "the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the Corporate Debtor". From this order,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applicant placed reliance on Sheenlac Noroo Coatings India Private Ltd. And ors (supra), wherein it is held as under: "1. This application has been filed by the Applicant/Defendant to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit has been filed when the Adjudicating Authority granted moratorium period on the Applicant's company. It is further stated that the suit has been filed on 28.11.2017. It is also stated that the Company Petition filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Adjudicating Authority) and a Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was declared by the Adjudicating Authority Prohibiting/Barring institution of the suits against the Defendant/Respondent. On 28.07.2017 in terms of order dated 26.07.2017, public announcement was made in respect of initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Applicant. Further announcement called for claims from all the creditors of the applicant including the plaintiff. The Plaintiff has not filed any claim whereas they filed the present suit on 28.11.2017. The suit was numbered o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssionals and the committee of creditors constituted under the IBC as well as the jurisdiction of NCLT and NCLAT qua resolution plans approved by the committee of creditors. After an elaborate and exhaustive analysis of various provisions of the IBC, the Bench concluded that a successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with 'undecided' claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted. This would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of corporate debtor. Paragraph 107 of the said decision reads as under: 107. For the same reason, the impugned NCLAT judgment [Standard Chartered Bank v. Satish Kumar Gupta, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLAT 388] in holding that claims that may exist apart from those decided on merits by the resolution professional and by the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Tribunal can now be decided by an appropriate forum in terms of Section 60(6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l government, any state government or any local authority if not part of the resolution plan shall stand extinguished and no proceeding in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the adjudicating authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued. Paragraph 102 of the aforesaid decision reads thus: 102. In the result, we answer the questions framed by us as under: 102.1. That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the central government, any state government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the adjudicating authority, all such claims, which are not a part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan. 102.3. Consequently all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the central government, any state gover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an Order declaring moratorium was passed by the NCLT. The High Court passed the impugned Interim Orders after the CIRP had commenced in this case. The moratorium having been declared by the NCLT, the High Court was not justified in passing the Orders for carrying out auction of the assets of the Respondent No. 4-Company i.e. the Corporate Debtor before the NCLT. The subject matter of the auction proceedings before the High Court was a vast chunk of land, including Railway lines and buildings. If the assets of the Respondent No. 4-Company are alienated during the pendency of the proceedings under the IBC, it would seriously jeopardise the interest of all the stakeholders. As a consequence, set aside the impugned Interim Orders passed by the High Court, as parallel proceedings with respect to the main issue could not take place in the High Court. The sale or liquidation of the assets of Respondent No. 4 would now be governed by the provisions of the IBC. [9]" 21. Learned Counsel for applicant placed reliance in RPS Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), in support of his contention that the plaintiff has not raised the claim when initiation of CIRP is published. 22. Learned Counsel for r....