Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2026 (10) TMI 400

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eking quashing of the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2(c) C.C.47 of 2013 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal, as well as the order dated 21.11.2013 taking cognizance of the offences qua the petitioner. 2. The impugned complaint was instituted by the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha against erstwhile BSL and three of its then officials, namely, Rahul Sengupta, erstwhile Executive Vice President, Atulya Kumar Verma, erstwhile Chief Operating Officer, and Dr. Ram Mohan Sharma, erstwhile Senior General Manager (Environment). The complaint alleged contravention of the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, particularly Sections 21 and 23, with Sections 37 and 39 thereof being invoked a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....retrospective effect from 28.12.2019. According to the petitioner, the said provision provides statutory immunity to a corporate debtor from prosecution for an offence committed prior to the commencement of the CIRP, where the Resolution Plan has resulted in a change in the management or control of the corporate debtor, subject to the conditions prescribed therein. 7. It is contended that, in the present case, the alleged offences relate to the period when the erstwhile BSL was under its previous management and were committed prior to completion of the CIRP and the change in management on 18.05.2018. Since the petitioner is the successful resolution applicant and successor-in-interest of erstwhile BSL, it is submitted that the criminal l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te party is pending before the learned trial Court, this Court ought not to interfere at this stage so as to scuttle the on-going proceeding. 10. I have carefully gone through the records and considered the rival submissions made by both the parties at the Bar in the light of the cited provisions of law and the judgments operating the field. It is undisputed that the impugned complaint has been filed by the opposite party against the erstwhile BSL and its officials under Sections 37 and 39 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short, "the Air Act"), alleging contravention of Sections 21 and 23 thereof. Since the erstwhile BSL was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), its banker initiated proceedings under Secti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly, Clause 8.2.6 of the approved Resolution Plan provides that the New Management shall not incur any civil or criminal liability for any breach, contravention or non-compliance with any law in respect of the period preceding the approval of the Resolution Plan. The said clause further provides that the directors, key managerial personnel and officers of the Company shall not be fastened with any civil or criminal liability arising out of any such breach, contravention or non-compliance with the applicable law. 11. Besides the aforesaid provisions contained in the Resolution Plan, the statute itself provides protection to the successful resolution applicant and the corporate debtor in respect of offences committed prior to the approval o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as defined in clause (j) of section 2 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 or any "officer who is in default", as defined in clause (60) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013, or was in any manner in-charge of, or responsible to the corporate debtor for the conduct of its business or associated with the corporate debtor in any manner and who was directly or indirectly involved in the commission of such offence as per the report submitted or complaint filed by the investigating authority, shall continue to be liable to be prosecuted, and punished for such an offence committed by the corporate debtor notwithstanding that the corporate debtor's liability has ceased under this sub-section." From the express language employed ....