Isgee Heavy Engineering Ltd vs Bhushan Energy Ltd. Through Its R.P. & ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 532 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order rests on the proposition that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 continues to operate until it is formally revoked by the Adjudicating Authority, so that a claim that the 270-day period has expired does not by itself end the moratorium. Where a resolution plan is pending before the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere on the ground that the appellant's arguments about the expiry of the moratorium period did not warrant interference with the impugned order, and it directed the Adjudicating Authority to decide the pending matter within three weeks.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Isgee Heavy Engineering Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Bhushan Energy Ltd. Through its R.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. K. Datta, Mr. Ashish Verma and Ms. Prachi Johri, Advocates
For Respondent : Mr. Mayank Mishra and Ms. Pallavi Kumar, Advocates
ORDER
17.05.2019 The Appellant has challenged the order dated 4th April, 2019
passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New
Delhi, Principal Bench, which reads as follows:
"The present application shall be taken up with
the main case. In the meanwhile, it is clarified that
the moratorium under Section 14 of the Code, 2016
continues to be in operation till it is revoked.
Apparently, there is no order of revocation of
moratorium."
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that period of moratorium
should have been treated as completed on 5th October, 2018 as more than 270 -2-
days have been passed. However, it is accepted that the 'resolution plan' has
been filed before the Adjudicating Authority which was considered and order was
reserved on 15th November, 2018. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits
that in the meantime arbitration proceeding filed by the Appellant should be
allowed to be continued.
3. However, on such ground we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order but we are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority should
pass appropriate order in accordance with law on an early date preferably within
3 weeks. If the order is not passed within 3 weeks from the production of this
order, then it will be open to the Appellant to file an application before the
Adjudicating Authority for continuation of arbitration proceedings if permissible
under the law.
4. The appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations. No order as to
costs.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice A.I.S. Cheema ] Member (Judicial)
[ Kanthi Narahari ] Member (Technical) /ns/gc Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 532 of 2019
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free