2025 (5) TMI 1118 - HC - Indian Laws

Challenged the maintainability of the complaint - Dishonor of Cheque - declaration of moratorium - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the petitioner company is underway before the NCLT - Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Validity of moratorium declared under Section 14 of Code - HELD THAT - Admittedly the petitioner is a corporate debtor. One M/s. Amar Constructions (operational creditor) has approached the NCLT Indore Bench by presenting an insolvency petition against the corporate debtor. The applicant therein filed CP(IB)/81/MP/2022 before the NCLT under Section 9 of the Code. The Tribunal has declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code as per its order dated 22.3.2024. Subsequently as per order dated 16.5.2024 the Tribunal appointed a resolution professional for the petitioner. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is now underway. This Court in Jacob Samson v. State of Kerala 2022 (12) TMI 1565 - KERALA HIGH COURT reiterated the principles underlined by the Supreme Court. Thus the conclusions are the following - (i) When the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the company is underway the corporate debtor would be covered by the moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the Code by which continuation of Section 138/141 proceedings against the corporate debtor and initiation of Section 138/141 proceedings against the said debtor during the corporate insolvency resolution process are interdicted. (ii) The moratorium provision under Section 14 of the Code would apply only to the corporate debtor. (iii) The natural persons referred to in Section 141 of the N.I. Act continues to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the N.I. Act. Therefore the order impugned stands set aside. All further proceedings in C.C.No.996 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XII Thiruvananthapurm against the petitioner (corporate debtor)/accused No.1 shall stand deferred till the moratorium is lifted by the competent authority. The learned Magistrate is at liberty to proceed against the natural persons. This Court in O.P.(Crl.)No.730 of 2023 had directed the learned Magistrate to expedite the trial in the Calendar Case. The learned Magistrate may proceed with the case against the natural persons in compliance with the directions of this Court in O.P. (Crl.)No.730 of 2023. The Original Petition is disposed of as above.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

(a) Whether the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) prohibits continuation or initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) against the corporate debtor during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

(b) Whether the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC applies to natural persons such as directors or officers associated with the corporate debtor who are liable under Section 141 of the N.I. Act.

(c) Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petition challenging the maintainability of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the corporate debtor during the moratorium period.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Effect of Moratorium under Section 14 of IBC on Section 138 Proceedings against Corporate Debtor

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

Section 14(1) of the IBC mandates a moratorium upon the insolvency commencement date, prohibiting the institution or continuation of suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor, including execution of any judgment or order. This moratorium is intended to provide a breathing space to the corporate debtor during the CIRP.

The Supreme Court in P. Mohanraj and Others v. M/s. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2021) examined whether Section 138/141 proceedings under the N.I. Act against a corporate debtor fall within the scope of Section 14(1)(a) moratorium. The Court held that continuation or initiation of such proceedings against the corporate debtor is barred during the moratorium period.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The Court observed that Section 14(1)(a) explicitly prohibits continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor. Since proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act constitute suits or proceedings, they are covered by the moratorium. The Court emphasized the statutory bar created by Section 14 IBC, making it impossible to continue or initiate Section 138 proceedings against the corporate debtor during CIRP.

Key Evidence and Findings:

The petitioner company is undergoing CIRP before the NCLT, and a moratorium has been declared under Section 14 of the IBC. The complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed prior to the moratorium. The trial court dismissed the petition challenging the maintainability of the complaint.

Application of Law to Facts:

Given the statutory moratorium, continuation of the Section 138 complaint against the corporate debtor is impermissible until the moratorium is lifted. The trial court's dismissal of the petition was contrary to the statutory mandate and Supreme Court precedent.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The respondent argued that criminal proceedings under Section 138 are penal and not civil, and thus not barred by the moratorium. However, the Court distinguished that while the nature of Section 138 proceedings is penal, the moratorium under Section 14 IBC applies to all proceedings against the corporate debtor, including penal proceedings under Section 138, as held in P. Mohanraj.

Conclusion:

The moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC prohibits continuation or initiation of Section 138 proceedings against the corporate debtor during CIRP.

Issue (b): Applicability of Moratorium to Natural Persons Liable under Section 141 of the N.I. Act

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

Section 141 of the N.I. Act imposes liability on natural persons in charge of the company's business, such as directors or officers. The Supreme Court in P. Mohanraj clarified that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC applies only to the corporate debtor (a juristic person) and not to natural persons liable under Section 141.

Further, in Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd. (2023), the Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are penal in nature and not civil recovery proceedings. It held that moratorium under Section 14 IBC does not extend to criminal proceedings against natural persons.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The Court reiterated that while the corporate debtor is protected by moratorium, natural persons such as directors or signatories remain liable under the N.I. Act and can be proceeded against. The moratorium cannot be used as a shield by natural persons to evade penal liability.

Key Evidence and Findings:

The petitioner's former CEO and directors are accused in the complaint under Section 138. The Court noted that proceedings against these natural persons are not barred by the moratorium.

Application of Law to Facts:

The Court allowed the trial court to proceed against the natural persons, while staying proceedings against the corporate debtor during the moratorium.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The petitioner contended that all proceedings, including those against natural persons, should be stayed. The Court rejected this, relying on the statutory scheme and judicial precedents distinguishing corporate debtor and natural persons.

Conclusion:

The moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC applies only to the corporate debtor, and proceedings against natural persons under Section 141 of the N.I. Act continue unaffected.

Issue (c): Validity of Trial Court's Order Dismissing Petition Challenging Maintainability of Complaint

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

The trial court dismissed the petition challenging the maintainability of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the corporate debtor during moratorium. The Supreme Court precedents (P. Mohanraj and Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka) emphasize that continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor is barred during moratorium.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The High Court found the trial court's dismissal contrary to the statutory moratorium and binding precedents. It held that the trial court erred in refusing to stay proceedings against the corporate debtor.

Key Evidence and Findings:

The moratorium order dated 22.3.2024 by the NCLT is in force. The complaint under Section 138 was filed prior to the moratorium. The trial court did not stay the proceedings against the corporate debtor.

Application of Law to Facts:

The Court set aside the trial court order and directed that proceedings against the corporate debtor be deferred till the moratorium is lifted, while permitting proceedings against natural persons.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The petitioner's reliance on moratorium was accepted; the respondent's contention that criminal proceedings should continue was accepted only insofar as they relate to natural persons, not the corporate debtor.

Conclusion:

The trial court's order dismissing the petition was set aside. Proceedings against the corporate debtor are stayed during moratorium; proceedings against natural persons may continue.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"Subject to provisions of sub- sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely:- (a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgement, decree or order in any Court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority." (Section 14(1)(a), IBC)

"Since the corporate debtor would be covered by the moratorium provision contained in Section 14 IBC, by which continuation of Sections 138/141 proceedings against the corporate debtor and initiation of Sections 138/141 proceedings against the said debtor during the corporate insolvency resolution process are interdicted, what is stated in paras 51 and 59 in Aneeta Hada would then become applicable. The legal impediment contained in Section 14 IBC would make it impossible for such proceeding to continue or be instituted against the corporate debtor." (P. Mohanraj)

"The moratorium provision contained in Section 14 IBC would apply only to the corporate debtor, the natural persons mentioned in Section 141 continuing to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act." (P. Mohanraj)

"The nature of proceedings which have to be kept in abeyance do not include criminal proceedings, which is the nature of proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act." (Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka)

"After passing of the resolution plan under Section 31 IBC by the adjudicating authority & in the light of the provisions of Section 32-A IBC, the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act will stand terminated only in relation to the corporate debtor if the same is taken over by a new management. Section 138 proceedings in relation to the signatories/ Directors who are liable/covered by the two provisos to Section 32-A(1) will continue in accordance with law." (Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka)

Final determinations:

(i) The moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC prohibits continuation or initiation of Section 138 proceedings against the corporate debtor during CIRP.

(ii) The moratorium applies only to the corporate debtor; natural persons liable under Section 141 of the N.I. Act remain liable and proceedings against them continue.

(iii) The trial court order dismissing the petition challenging maintainability of the complaint against the corporate debtor during moratorium is set aside, and proceedings against the corporate debtor are stayed until moratorium is lifted.