Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (8) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 417 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyLegality of impugned orders and the recovery notices issued by the Respondent - breach of moratorium period admittedly, during the time when moratorium was imposed by Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT:- The purpose of imposition of a moratorium has been expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Mohanraj and Others vs. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd, [2021 (3) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the moratorium is imposed to shield the Corporate Debtor from pecuniary attacks to enable it to get a breathing space so that it can continue as a going concern to ultimately rehabilitate itself. A plain reading of section 14 of the Code shows that there is complete prohibition imposed by the legislature on the institution of suits or continuation of proceedings against the Corporate Debtor including execution of any judgment, decree, or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority. Section 14 of the Code does not differentiate between any proceedings, whether they are assessment, quasi-judicial or judicial in nature. In fact, a moratorium is imposed on all proceedings irrespective of the nature. The object as succinctly put by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is clearly to shield the Corporate Debtor from all pecuniary attacks - In the case at hand, the proceedings initiated by the Respondent are not mere assessment proceedings as contented by the Respondent. The proceedings are legal proceedings as provided for in the circular dated 14.02.2020 issued by the Respondent, which encompass evidence to be led by parties to reach to a conclusion whether there is any amount which is due or payable under the EPF & MP Act. This is also evident from a reading of provision 7A of the EPF & MP Act, which describes the proceedings under the said section as judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purpose of section 196, of Indian Penal Code. The benefits such as provident fund and gratuity fund are required to be protected and prioritised which is also the intent of the Code. It therefore goes without saying that the setting aside of the orders passed by the Respondent will not come in way of the respective employees or workmen to file their respective claims, if any, with the Applicant under the provisions of the Code in respect of dues toward provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund. The Applicant is duty bound, as per the Law laid down to ascertain and prioritise the payments of the social welfare dues. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the Orders passed by the Respondent, the orders being in violation of the moratorium imposed are liable to be set aside - Application allowed.
|