TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n managing the affairs/business and management of the Corporate Debtor under section 17, 18, 20 and 23 of the Code. In view of section 25 the RP is duty bound to take immediate control of all the assets of the Corporate Debtor and hence has rightly sought for the defreezing action from the Respondent No. 1 - The Respondent No. 1 further has appeared in the Court and indicated that they have no objection for defreezing the bank account. The order of attachment passed by the Respondent No. 2, i.e. The Assistant Collector, Division-19, Commercial Tax, Lucknow dated 21.11.2020 is hereby set aside - application allowed. - IA/309/MB/2021 in CP (IB) 3025/MB/2019 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2021 - Chandra Bhan Singh, Member (T) And Suchitra Kanuparth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RP, the applicant on 03.10.2019 informed the Respondent No. 1 Bank about the ongoing CIRP. However, in the month of Oct 2019, the officials of the Corporate Debtor learned from the Respondent No. 1 that the subject bank account had been marked as no debit and that there was no attachment order passed with respect to the subject bank account. The applicant vide an email on 22.10.2019 sought an explanation from Respondent No. 1 seeking an explanation/basis for defreeze an action and requested for an immediate removal of debit freeze. The Respondent No. 1 on 24.10.2019 and 11.11.2019 informed the Applicant that vide notice dated 07.07.2017 issued by Nashik Mahanagar Palika to Respondent No. 1 inter alia freezing of subject bank account and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent No. 2 issued an attachment order for attaching bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor in view of the outstanding commercial tax dues for the year 2014-15. 6. Around 9, December 2020 while checking the account balance of subject bank account it was noticed that a sum of ₹ 16,28,000/- has been debited in favor of Respondent No. 2 from the subject bank account. The said amount was paid by the way of Demand Draft on 08.12.2020. Thus, during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, the Respondent No. 1 had made a payment to Respondent No. 2 on behalf of the Corporate Debtors for pre CIRP dues for the year 2014-15. 7. The Applicant on 15.12.2020 informed the Respondent No. 1 bank that in terms of section 14 of the Code, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legally frozen by the Respondent No. 1 in contravention of the provisions of the Code. 10. The applicant further claimed that in terms of section 17(1)(d) r/w section 23 of the Code, the Financial Institutions maintaining bank accounts of the Corporate Debtor are bound to act upon the instructions of the RP, despite the request by the Applicant, the Respondent No. 1 failed to transfer the funds and that the debit freeze action restricts/prevent the RP from taking control and custody of the subject bank account and carrying out obligations of the Code. The Applicant finally submitted that the freezing of bank account is in contravention of the moratorium imposed under section 14 of the Code. Respondent No. 1 11. The Counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon the judgment in Chitra Sharma v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India (2018) 18 SCC 575 wherein it was held that during the pendency of CIRP it would be impermissible for the court to direct preferential payment being made to a particular class of Financial Creditor, by the secured or unsecured and directed the disbursement of the amount of ₹ 750 crores to the home buyers who seek refund would be manifestly improper and cause injustice to the secured creditors since it would amount to preferential disbursement to a class of creditors. The Learned Senior Counsel also referred to judgement of ICICI Bank Vs IRP, Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. (NCLAT), wherein the Hon'ble NCLAT at para 4 held as follows: 4. In the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to file its claim with the Resolution Professional of Corporate Debtor with respect to its outstanding Commercial tax dues. 18. This bench doth order as follows; i. The order of attachment passed by the Respondent No. 2, i.e. The Assistant Collector, Division-19, Commercial Tax, Lucknow dated 21.11.2020 is hereby set aside. ii. The Respondent No. 2, i.e., The Assistant Collector, Division-19, Commercial Tax, Lucknow is directed to refund ₹ 16,28,000/- debited from the account of Corporate Debtor immediately forthwith. iii. The Respondent No. 1, i.e., The HDFC Bank Limited is directed to defreeze the bank account No. 00600310002807 of the Corporate Debtor immediately forthwith. 19. The IA No. 309/MB/2021 in CP( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
