M/S Madhur Engineers Pvt Ltd & Anr vs M/S Facor Steels Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 36 of 2017
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a s.10 application under the I&B Code, 2016 is complete in terms of s.10(4), and no other illegality is shown, the Tribunal will not interfere with the adjudicating authority's order admitting the application, even though the admission brings the s.14 moratorium into operation and affects a creditor's pending winding-up proceedings. A creditor's pending winding-up petition does not, by reason of the moratorium, render the admission order vitiated; the creditor's remedy lies in filing its claim before the Insolvency Resolution Professional, and the admission order does not prejudice that claim.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
M/s. Facor Steels Ltd. Respondent
Present: For Appellant: - Ms Purti Marwaha Gupta, Advocate.
ORDER
9.5.20 17 - This appeal has been preferred by Appellant against order dated 8th March 2017 passed by the 'adjudicating authority', Mumbai Bench in C.P. No. 18/I&BP/NCLT/MAH/2017. By the impugned order the 'adjudicating authority' admitted the application under Section 10 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as I&B Code, 2016).
IA. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is a financial creditor and a sum of Rs. 5.81 crores with interest is payable by corporate debtor to the Appellant. She further submits that a winding up petition has been initiated at the instance of Appellant and is pending before the High Court. In view of moratorium order under Section 14 of the I&B Code, 2016 passed by the 'adjudicating authority' the winding up petition filed by the Appellant will be affected.
From the record, we find that the Appellant has already filed an application before the Insolvency Resolution Professional making a claim of Rs.5.81 crores with interest. Further as we find that the 'adjudicating authority' has admitted application being satisfied that the petition under Section 10 of the I&B Code, 2016 is complete in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 10, in the absence of any other illegality, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The prayer is accordingly rejected. However, this order will not come in the way of Appellant's claim as raised before the Insolvency Resolution Professional. The appeal stand disposed off with aforesaid observation. No cost.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Mr. Balvinder Singh) Member (Technical)
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