Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + HC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 638 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking clarification of the order to the effect that this Court never prohibited Respondent No.1-bank from initiating or maintaining proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against the Appellant-Zee - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the clarification application as to whether the order dated 03rd December, 2021 intended to restrain Respondent No.1-bank from exercising its rights under IBC is not in the nature of a review. In fact, the present application has been filed in accordance with liberty granted to the parties to approach the Court if the need arises. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by the Appellate-Zee is untenable in law. This Court is of the view that every individual has a right to file any legal proceeding till specifically prohibited by law or by a stay/injunction order granted by a competent Court. In the present case, the Appellant-Zee is seeking to restrain the respondent No.1-bank from initiating IBC proceeding on the strength of the order dated 03rd December, 2021 passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench. However, the order dated 03rd December, 2021 modified the earlier restraint order dated 25th February, 2021 and permitted the Respondent No.1-bank to file recovery proceeding - assuming that IBC proceeding initiated by Respondent No.1bank is not a recovery proceeding, one will have to examine if IBC proceeding initiated by Respondent No.1-bank is violative of order dated 25th February, 2021. It is settled law that IBC proceeding is neither coercive nor adversarial to the interest of corporate debtor and guarantor. Further, it is a settled proposition of law that no interim injunction can be granted where permanent injunction cannot be granted. Accordingly, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the learned Single Judge rightly held that if the interim injunction was to be granted it would debilitate the Respondent No.1bank’s ability to take recourse to remedies which are available to it in law. Thus, it is clarified that this Court never prohibited Respondent No.1-bank from initiating or maintaining proceedings under the IBC against the Appellant-Zee. Accordingly, there is no disobedience or violation of this Court’s orders dated 25th February, 2021 and 3rd December, 2021 and the contempt petition is without any merit - petition dismissed.
|