TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 787
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al has been filed against an impugned order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in Company Petition No. IB-365/CHD/PB/2018 titled as Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund Vs M/s Dwarikadhish Spinners Ltd. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority has allowed a petition under Section 7 of IBC filed by the Respondent No.1 herein, despite the fact on 23.07.2019 a scheme of arrangement under Section 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been approved by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. 2.B Before proceeding further let us state few brief facts. 3. In the year 2008 a scheme of arrangement under Section 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, being CP No. 51/2008 was initiated by the Corporate Debtor which w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng. 8. On 12.10.2018 the Respondent No.1 filed a petition under Section 7 of IBC before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority while concealing the factum of pendency of the Scheme for Arrangement before the Ld. Punjab & Haryana High Court. On 23.07.2019 the second motion petition was allowed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court approving the said scheme of arrangement and with a direction the scheme shall be binding on the appellant as well as all its stake holders, i.e. all creditors alongwith Respondent No.1 herein. 9. On 23.09.2019 the copy of the order dated 23.07.2019 passed in CP No. 89/2009 was sent to the Respondent No.1 by the appellant with a choice to Respondent No.1 either to stick with Option No. III already opted for or a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed objections before Hon'ble High Court bringing to the notice of the High Court the consent of lenders stands withdrawn as period for filing second motion had elapsed and only for this reason, the scheme sanctioned order dated 23.07.2019 was recalled by the Ld. Single Judge on an application filed by the lenders and though the said order was stayed by the Ld. Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana vide its order dated 10.10.2022 but it did not quash the order dated 2nd August, 2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge and the same still exists. 14. Now admitted fact as they emerge are the order of recall dated 2nd August, 2022 stands stayed in APP No.14/2022 by the Ld. Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court. The said appeal is still pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or default is an issue pending before the Ld. Division Bench of High Court and it was not appropriate for Ld. Adjudicating Authority to over-reach such jurisdiction. Per force, as the scheme of arrangement was sanctioned on 23.07.2019 there existed a novation of contract and the debt stood resolved per Suresh Kr Reddy Vs Canara Bank and others 2023 (5) SCR 387. 17. Further Section 7 of the IBC uses the word "may", making admission of a petition discretionary. Now the facts and circumstances so warrant, the Adjudicating Authority should have kept the admission in abeyance till the App No.14/2022 was decided. 18. The mandate of Section 7 of the Code is to explore a resolution for the benefit of the company and it had already taken place....