TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1514
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the applicant to vacate the suit property. The 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 approva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be taken into consideration and, therefore, impugned 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 interfe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; (b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or proceedings in respect of any matter on which National Company Law Tribunal or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction under this Code." 17. Learned Counsel for 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....teel Limited (supra), wherein it is held as under: "29. In Essar Steel India Ltd. (supra), a three-Judge Bench of this Court examined amongst others the role of resolution applicants, resolution professionals 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 holdin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceeding in respect to a claim which is not part of the resolution plan. The Bench declared that all dues including statutory dues owed to the central 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is empowered by the Code to pass any Order. [8] (iii) In view of the provisions of the IBC, the High Court ought not to have proceeded with the auction of the property of the Corporate Debtor-Respondent No. 4, once the proceedings under the IBC had commenced, and 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 wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....property by the plaintiffs who have admittedly share as co-parceners. All the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the applicants/Bank do not touch upon this aspect. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiffs (respondents 1 and 2 herein) have no remedy under any other law including the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for partition of the property. The Tribunal constituted under the RDDBFI Act, 1993 read with SARFAESI Act, 2002, has no power for granting preliminary decree of partition and appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to divide the properties by metes and bounds." 25. Learned Counsel for respondent also placed reliance on judgment of Calcutta High Court in Kanak Projects Ltd (supra), however in view of the judgment of full bench of NCLT, this issue will not survive and it is held as rent is operational debt that has to be raised at proper time. 26. In view of this settled position of law and provision of IB Code, the day on which suit is filed was barred by the order of NCLT, which has overriding effect over other enactment and provisions. In the said order itself, the moratorium period shall be in effect till approval of plan submitted by the resolution profes....