TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respondent No. 2 (NSEL): Mr. Arvind Lakhawat a/w. Mr. Nimeet Sharma, Adv. Vinit Vaidya, Adv. Jalpa Shah & Adv. Himani Narula i/b. MZM Legal LLP. JUDGMENT [PER : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.] :- 1) All aforesaid Appeals have been filed under Section 11 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short 'MPID Act') impugning separate Order dated 4th November, 2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (MPID), City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay in separate Applications in same MPID Special Case No. 1/2014 and seeking quashing and setting aside of said Orders. The impugned Orders arising out of similar facts on the same question of law. Therefore, all these are being decided by this c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....commenced against her in terms of Section 96 of IBC, 2016. Since the interim moratorium was set, therefore, no legal action/proceedings can be instituted or commenced or continued against her. As a result, the proceedings in Exh.42 are liable to be stayed by virtue of Section 96 of IBC. 3.2) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the Exh.18 with their say at Exh.18A and 18B respectively, which were similar. Respondent No.2 contended that Section 96 of the IBC is applicable only when the statutory attachment at the instance of Respondent No. 1 under Section 4 of the MPID Act is 'debt'. There is no material on record to show that, there was such a 'debt' that has been sought to be secured by the State with the help of the attachment under Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n initiated to execute the said decree. It was contended that only the Interim Resolution Professional has the locus to file an Application under the IBC. As such, there is no substance in the Application. 4) We shall now advert to the remaining Appeals. The Appeal No.22 of 2024 is directed against an Order below Exh.17 an Application under Section 96 of IBC, in Objection/Application at Exhibit No. 172. Said Exh.17 had sought to stay the proceedings in said Exh.74 filed under Section 7 of MPID Act and seeking to make absolute the attachment of certain properties. Appeal No.23 of 2024 is directed against an Order below Exh.20 an Application under Section 96 of IBC, in Objection/Application at Exhibit No.78. Said Exh.20 had sought to st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C is practically similar to the case advanced by Appellant-Smt. Kanta Gupta in Appeal No. 6 of 2024 in her Application at Exh.18 under Section 96 of the IBC seeking stay to the Application at Exh.42 filed under Section 7 of MPID Act by Respondent No. 1. Said Applications under Section 96 of the IBC filed by other Appellant/s were opposed by the Respondents by filing their separate say. The contentions raised therein are materially similar to those advanced in their say at Exh. 18A and 18B filed in response to the Application at Exh. 18 of Appellant-Smt. Kanta Gupta in Appeal No. 6 of 2024. However, only distinction is that the subject matter property/amount in these remaining Appeals is different. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, we d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ersuaded him to reject the Application under Section 96 of IBC. Mainly, the reasons are that, the property, attachment of which was to be made absolute was not a 'debt' within the meaning of the MPID Act. There was no 'debtor-creditor' relationship between the Appellants therein and Respondent No. 1. In absence of any debt the moratorium under Section 96 was not applicable. The doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 (1) of the Constitution of India is applicable only if both Parliamentary Legislation and State legislation are framed under List III (Concurrent List) of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The MPID Act and IBC operate in distinct spheres of legislation and fall in List II and List III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitutio....