Hindprakash Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Modern Syntax (India) Ltd

Hindprakash Industries Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Vs.

Modern Syntax (India) Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: - Ms. Rashi Bansal, Advocate.

For Respondent: - Ms. Anju Jain and Mr. Hitesh Sachar, Advocates.

O R D E R

18.09.2019─ Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant and

being satisfied with the grounds, delay of 2 days in preferring the appeal

is hereby condoned. I.A. No. 2879 of 2019 stands disposed of.

The Appellant has filed application under Section 9 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("I&B Code' for short) for

initiation of the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against

'Modern Syntex (India) Ltd.'- ('Corporate Debtor'). The case was registered

in the year 2018 but in view of stay order passed by the Hon'ble High

Court of Rajasthan, no specific order was passed by the Adjudicating

Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Jaipur Bench.

Contd/-............

-2-

2. By the impugned order dated 6th August, 2019, the application has

been adjourned and tied with another case, which reads as follows:

"The learned counsel for the respondent submits

that the stay earlier granted by Hon'ble High

Court of Rajasthan continues. Post this matter

along with the IA No. 18/JPR/2019 in IB No.

39(PB)/2018 & TA No. 71/2018 on 20.09.2019"

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that

the case of the Appellant is different and has got no relevancy with the

case which has been tied up.

4. However, counsel for Respondent- 'Modern Syntax (India) Limited',

objected to the submission of the Appellant and submits that it has got

relevancy with the other case.

5. In the present case, we are not deciding the question as to whether

the case of the Appellant should have been tied with the other case or not

but we find that the matter is pending for more than a year.

6. Normally, when an application has been filed under Section 9 of

the 'I&B Code' after notice to the parties in absence of any dispute or if

there is any debt and default and application is complete, it is to be

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 958 of 2019 -3-

admitted. However, in case where there is no debt payable in law or in

fact, if somebody shows that there is pre-existence dispute, matter

requires consideration.

7. However, if a matter is kept pending for more than a year, the

'Corporate Debtor' gets an opportunity to divert its funds and may

transfer its assets, which in result may affect the Creditors, if the

'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' starts.

8. The time is the essence of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution

Process' and if for one or other reason the matter is delayed; it may affect

the Creditors as observed above.

9. In these circumstances, while we are not interfering with the

impugned order, we allow the Appellant to bring this fact to the notice of

the Adjudicating Authority that the other case has no relevancy with this

and further direct the Respondent- 'Modern Syntax (India) Limited' not to

sell or transfer or make third party encumbrance of moveable and

immoveable properties of the 'Corporate Debtor' till appropriate order is

passed by the Adjudicating Authority on the application under Section 9.

10. However, it will be open to the 'Corporate Debtor' to perform its day

to day functioning and may draw the amount from its Bank for the

purpose of performing such functions and other duties such as payment

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 958 of 2019 -4-

of salary to paid Directors, Officers, employees, workmen, statutory dues

as also to the suppliers of goods and services and also to the 'Operational

Creditors'.

The appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and

directions. No costs.

(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson

(Justice A.I.S. Cheema) Member(Judicial)

(Kanthi Narahari) Member(Technical) Ar/sk

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 958 of 2019