TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor. 2. That the supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor, if continuing, shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period. 3. That the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator. 4. That the order of moratorium shall have effect from 17.1.2017 till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or until this Bench approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of section 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been existing against the Corporate Debtor have been suspended under Maharashtra Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act on 18.7.2016 declaring that the Industrial Undertaking called M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd. (under the said it is referred as the said relief undertaking ), to which financial assistance of industrial promotion subsidy of ₹ 115,36,40,000 provided by the Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme of 2007 Incentive, shall for a period one year commencing on 22.7.2016 and ending of 21.7.2017 be conducted to serve as a measure of preventing unemployment and directs that in relation to such undertaking in respect of one year period mentioned above, rights, privileges, obligations, or liability accrued or incurred before 22.7.2016 and any remedy for the enforcement thereof shall remain suspended and all proceedings relating thereto pending before any Court, Tribunal, Officers or Authority shall be stayed. 3. The case of the Corporate Debtor in this interim application is, since Industry, Energy and Labour Department of Maharashtra passed the above reliefs suspending the liabilities of the Corporate Debtor and remedies against the debtor for on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its that Non-Obstante clause in Section 238 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 as against Non-Obstante Clause in MRU, both operate in different fields, one for realisation of the credit facility availed by the Debtor and another for preventing unemployment in the Industry, since the later object is more laudable cause protected by the state, the same shall not be disturbed by invoking section 238 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. 6. Therefore, to propound this argument, the counsel relied upon VishalNKalsa v. Bank of India and Others [2016] 3 SCC 762 (Para 113), to say . the non obstante clause contained in section 34 (1) of the DRT Act and Section 35 of the Securitisation Act give overriding effect to the provisions of those Acts only if there is anything inconsistent contained in any other law. In other words, if there is no provision in other enactments which are inconsistent with the Code, the provisions contained in those Acts cannot override other legislations. 7. To which the Applicant Counsel submits that non obstante class in section 238 of IBC 2016 will have overriding effect over the operation of MRU Act 1958, because the law envisaged in MRU Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.7, it will not cause any obstruction to their employment until next 180 days, even if the company goes into liquidation, then also the rights of the employees are protected to the extent mentioned under IBC, therefore, the Corporate Debtor Counsel cannot have an argument saying that passing an order u/s.7 of the Code will be against the interest of the employees. 13. Here the subject matter is liability over the company, the liability of the company has been dealt with by the MRU Act and also by IBC but with different objectives, in MRU Act, it is to protect the interest of employees and in IBC, it is for protecting the creditors who have supplied fuel to the company to make it run. Since the liability suspended under MRU Act being inconsistent with the default occurred to the debt payable to the creditor, this order will not be against the ratio decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vishal N Kalsa v. Bank of India and Others (2016) 3 SCC 762 (Para 113) therefore, this Bench having not noticed any merit in the argument of the Corporate Debtor Counsel, the Application filed by the Corporate Debtor is hereby dismissed. 14. The corporate debtor filed another application saying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
