9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner had obtained finance from the 2nd respondent - Canara Bank on 5th March 2015. The petitioner's account has been declared as Non-Performing Asset on 1st July 2018. Pursuant to a Demand Notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("Act of 2002") on 1st August 2022, the Bank took steps to recall the credit facility. The Bank thereafter filed Original Application No.174 of 2023 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai ("DRT"). The Bank also filed Company Petition No.132 of 2024 before the National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT") under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code"). In the meanwhile, the DRT decided Origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petition, the petitioner has averred as under :- "38. The petitioner then filed an Interlocutory Application No.3623 of 2024 in the CP before the Hon'ble NCLT and brought on record all the subsequent events that have transpired and accordingly sought for deferment of passing of the final order in the CP, thereby admitting the petitioner i.e. a going concern into solvency. However, the Hon'ble NCLT paid no heed towards the same and reserved the Interlocutory Application No.3623 of 2024 for orders along with CP." 3. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court praying that the NCLT be directed not to pass final orders in Company Petition No. 132 of 2024 till the DRAT decides the appeal preferred by the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reliefs sought in the writ petition be granted. 5. Mr. Prakash Shinde, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - Bank has opposed the maintainability of the writ petition by urging that the same is premature. It is further submitted that since the petitioner has now approached the NCLT pursuant to the order passed by the NCLAT, this Court may not interfere in the writ petition. It is for the NCLT to consider the prayers made in the petitioner's Interlocutory Application. In these facts, no relief deserves to be granted to the petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 21st June 2024 passed by the NCLT reserving the proceedings in Company Petition No.13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the NCLT seeks consideration of these aspects before adjudicating the Company Petition. In our view, this request made by the petitioner ought to be considered by the NCLT before deciding the Company Petition. 8. In these facts, the interest of justice demands that the interlocutory application preferred by the petitioner being Interim Application No. 3623 of 2024 be first decided before proceeding to pronounce final order on the Company Petition. The statement made on behalf of the petitioner that an amount of Rs. 4,63,54,861/- would be deposited with the DRAT within a period of four weeks from today is accepted. The petitioner shall comply with the said statement. In case any adverse order is passed on the Interlocutory Application, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
