TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of a criminal proceeding. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a gross illegality in directing the criminal revision to be kept in abeyance by the impugned order. The order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. - Criminal Writ Petition 1437 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 6-8-2018 - MANGESH S. PATIL, J. Mr. S.S. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.M. Kagne, APP for Respondent State. Mr. A.S. Barlota, Advocate for respondents 2 to 7. JUDGMENT : 1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2] A very short question that arises for determination in this proceeding is as to whether morato ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose, recovery or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization 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. In view of such an order, the respondents 2 to 7 submitted application (Exh.20) in the Criminal Revision and requested to keep the revision in abeyance/stayed till further order was passed in the insolvency proceeding. 5] The petitioner opposed that application by its Say (Exh.23) inter alia on the ground that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Indo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly settles the law and can be followed even in the matter in hand. 7] The learned advocate would point out that though the decision was cited before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and though the learned Judge has reproduced the observations therein, nothing has been said by her as to why the decision in that case does not govern the situation in the matter in hand. 8] The learned advocate further submitted that the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal in a proceeding under Section 10 of the Code, also does not in clear terms directs any criminal proceeding to be kept in abeyance/stayed. Still the learned Additional Sessions Judge has readily held that the order prohibits continuation of the complaint under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are similar and therefore, though not strictly as a precedent, the decision in the case of Indorama is not applicable to the matter in hand, the reasonings and the logic in interpreting the provision contained in Sub Section 1 of Section 446 of the Companies Act laid down therein can easily be pressed into service even in the matter in hand. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has apparently overlooked this aspect of the matter and without quoting any reason has refused to follow the reasonings and the logic contained in the case of Indorama. 11] Be that as it may, since it is a matter of interpretation of Section 14 of the Code, let us examine its wordings, which read as under : 14. Moratorium.(1) Subject to provisions of sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at any time during the corporate insolvency resolution process period, if the Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of corporate debtor under section 33, the moratorium shall cease to have effect from the date of such approval or liquidation order, as the case may be. 12] As can be seen from Clause (a) of Sub Section 1 of Section 14 of the Code, once the adjudicating authority declares moratorium for prohibiting institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceeding against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any Court of law, Arbitration Tribunal or other authority, the whole emphasis of the argume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a suit or a proceeding of a like nature and does not include any criminal proceeding. 14] In view of such interpretation, which is deducible by following the line of reasonings for interpreting a similar provision contained in Sub Section 1 of Section 446 of the Companies Act in the case of Indorama (supra), the conclusion is inescapable. The criminal revision should not have been directed to be kept in abeyance by resorting to Section 14 of the Code. For that matter even the National Company Law Tribunal in its order in a proceeding under Section 10 could not have and has not specifically directed any prohibition against the continuation of a criminal proceeding. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a gross illegality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
