TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 7,72,86,109/- with 18% interest per annum on the said amount w.e.f. the date of filing of the arbitration till actual payment was in force as the objections filed by both the sides were dismissed and the said common award was upheld by the Commercial Court, Jaipur vide its common order dated 28.09.2016, though two separate appeals were filed by the applicant, which were pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan. Further, admittedly on 10.05.2018, on which date the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench passed a judgment in the appeals preferred by the applicant, quashing the judgment of the Commercial Court, Jaipur as well as the arbitration award, the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Code was very ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for procuring medicines for the year 2011-12, dated 03.06.2011 (Tender No. 1) and 2012-13, dated 13.01.2012 (Tender No. 2) and the respondent company was the successful bidder of both the tenders and accordingly, it was granted with the work orders/letter of acceptance for supplying drugs as per the terms of the agreement executed between the parties. The total contract value for the tender for the year 2011-12 i.e. for tender No. 1 was ₹ 38,34,21,912/- whereas for tender No. 2, the total value was ₹ 44,45,43,623/-. In pursuance of the said tenders, supplies were made and invoices were raised and due to delay and on account of the default in submitting the performance guarantee in respect of tender No. 2, the applicant terminat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Court, Jaipur and by order dated 28.09.2016, the Commercial Court, Jaipur upheld the arbitration award dated 29.06.2015 passed by the Sole Arbitrator. 4. Against the dismissal of the objection petitions, the applicant filed two separate appeals before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan on 29.11.2016 and that the respondent has not filed any appeal against the judgment dated 28.09.2016. 5. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench vide its judgment dated 10.05.2018, quashed and set aside the judgment dated 28.09.2016 passed by the learned Commercial Court as also the common award dated 29.06.2015 passed by the Sole Arbitrator and held that the applicant is well within its contractual right to claim the penalty amount t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the period of moratorium and hence contrary to the provisions of Section 14 of the Code. Hence, the instant CA. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent company and perused the pleadings on record carefully. 9. Admittedly, the CIRP proceedings in respect of the respondent company were initiated and moratorium was declared by an order of this Tribunal passed on 06.07.2017. As on the said date, the common award dated 29.06.2015 passed by the Sole Arbitrator Mr. Yad Ram Meena holding that the applicant is liable to pay an amount of ₹ 7,72,86,109/- with 18% interest per annum on the said amount w.e.f. the date of filing of the arbitration till actual payment was in force as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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; (d) 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) The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor as may be specified shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period. (3) 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) The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of such order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the corporate debtor during the moratorium period, however, allowed writ petitioner-Workers Union, to prefer its claim as per the Code and Regulations. 14. No one can also claim ignorance of existence of moratorium to sustain the orders passed or actions taken during the moratorium period. The Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Vs. Jadoun International Private Limited - CA 80(AT) (Ins) 1149 of 2019 dated 06.11.2019 - 2019 SCC Online NCLAT 754 where the appellant claims no knowledge of moratorium, held that Once Section 7 application was admitted, from commencement date moratorium got activated, and any action of the present nature violating moratorium could not be upheld. 15. The Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
