9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ') filed by the present Appellant. 2. The background to the present appeal is that an Award dated 29th April, 2013 was passed in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent/ Videocon Industries Limited (VIL). That Award was challenged by VIL before the learned Single Judge by filing O.M.P. No.665/2013 under Section 34 of the Act. During the pendency of the said petition, the following order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 13th November, 2013: "Mr. Sethi, learned senior counsel for Videocon Industries Ltd. (VIL), says that for the moment, VIL will be able to furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 20 crores. He says that the bank guarantee will be furnished within two weeks from today. Accordingly, VIL is directed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ai bearing no. 0156113IFG000104 for a sum of Rs. 20 crores. The said amount be credited with the Registrar General's account within 10 days. The amount shall be kept in an interest earning fixed deposit initially for a period of six months on an automatic renewal mode. 4. With the above directions, I.A. is disposed of List before the Registrar General for issuing the invocation of the bank guarantee and appropriate orders on 21st August 2018." 4. Subsequently, on 7th February, 2019 the learned Single Judge dismissed OMP No. 665/2013, affirming the Award dated 1st March, 2013 (as corrected on 29th April, 2013). By a separate order on the same date i.e. 7th February, 2019, the learned Single Judge disposed of OMP No. 1106/2012, which h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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; (b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing off by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; (c) 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 (54 of 2002); (d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V. Ramakrishnan AIR 2018 SC 3876, where the background to the introduction to the above amendment to the IBC was discussed. 8. This Court is unable to accept the above submission concerning the applicability of Section 14 (3) (b) of the IBC as amended, to the facts of the present case. The BG in question was encashed on 16th August, 2018 and the amount as a result of such encashment was kept as Fixed Deposit in the name of the Registrar General of this Court, so that it could earn interest. After that day and definitely on the date of passing of the impugned order dated 7th February, 2019, there was no BG in existence. The question therefore of the applicability of Section 14 (3) (b) of the IBC to any such BG on the date of the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order i.e. 7th February, 2019 with the insolvency proceedings having already commenced, the moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the IBC would be in place. How the said amount of Rs. 20 crores together with interest accrued thereon should be dealt with would, therefore, be subject to the orders passed by the NCLT in such insolvency proceedings.
12. Consequently, this Court rejects the submission on behalf of the Appellant that since the sum of Rs. 20 crores together with interest thereon is not the asset of VIL, it should not be dealt with or made subject to orders of NCLT, Mumbai. The impugned order does not call for interference. The appeal is dismissed. The applications are also dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
