9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC for short). On commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench, ('NCLT' for short) issued an order dated 13.09.2019 suspending the powers of the Board of Directors of the Company. Later vide order dated 19.02.2020, liquidation process against the Company commenced and the second respondent was appointed as the Liquidator. 2. After verification of the Company's accounts, the second respondent filed an application before the NCLT, pointing out that the Company had repaid loan amount of Rs.42,50,397/- to the petitioner, in preference to the trade payables, statutory dues and salaries due to the staff during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e writ petition is filed challenging the Liquidator's authority to direct freezing of petitioner's account. 2. Elaborate contentions were advanced by Adv. Anil D. Nair appearing for the petitioner, Adv. Nitish Satesh Shenoy for the second respondent and Adv. Santhosh Mathew for the first respondent Bank. 3. Adv. Anil D. Nair contended that no provision under the IBC, or the Rules and Regulations thereunder, confers the Liquidator with the power to freeze the account of the Director of a Company that is facing insolvency proceedings. As per prescribed procedure, the Liquidator should file an application for execution under Rule 56 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. Thereupon, the NCLT can, in terms of Rule 57 and aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of amounts due to the corporate debtor and if the petitioner's argument is accepted, the powers of the Liquidator would be rendered nugatory. 5. Adv. Santhosh Mathew submitted that, on receipt of request from the Liquidator to freeze the account of the petitioner's concern, a query was raised and the account was kept on hold only after ensuring that the request was legal. The said action was taken in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure of the Bank. The account was frozen, based on a subsequent order (Ext. R2(e)) of the NCLT. 7. The legal position as to the limited scope of interference in matters pending before the NCLT is no longer res integra in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
