Tata Motors Finance Ltd vs Jadoun International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

IN THE MATTER OF: Tata Motors Finance Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Jadoun International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

For Appellant: Shri Vardhman Kaushik, Shri Nishant Gautam and Shri Sangkrito Ray Chaudhuri, Advocates

For Respondents: None

ORDER

06.11.2019 Heard Counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal is arising

from Impugned Order dated 19.09.2019 passed by Adjudicating Authority

(National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur) in IA 238/JPR/2019 and

IA 258/JPR/2019 in TA 78/2018.

In this matter, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) had

started on 25th January, 2019. It appears that there was Hypothecation

Agreement between the Corporate Debtor and the Appellant and the Appellant

in pursuance to the Arbitral Award, proceeded to repossess two trucks

belonging to the Corporate Debtor and sold one on 15th March, 2019 and

another on 8th April, 2019. The Appellant claims that the Appellant did not

have knowledge of the moratorium.

It appears, before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law

Tribunal, Jaipur Bench), the Resolution Professional (RP) filed IA 238 of 2019

calling upon the Appellant to deposit the money and the Appellant filed IA 258

of 2019 that the Appellant was being restrained from filing claim with the RP

who is insisting for first deposit of the value of the trucks already sold.

By the Impugned Order, the Adjudicating Authority has directed the

Appellant to deposit Rs.25,10,000/- and then participate. The learned -2-

Counsel for the Appellant is submitting that the Appellant did not have

knowledge of the initiation of CIRP process and so the fault cannot be found

with the Appellant. The Counsel submits that if the Appellant had the trucks,

the Appellant would have given possession of the same but the same have

already been sold and if the Appellant is required to deposit the value of the

trucks sold, the Appellant would have no assurance of getting back its money.

We do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned Counsel

for the Appellant. Once Section 7 Application was admitted, from

commencement date, moratorium got activated and any action of the present

nature violating moratorium could not be upheld. In the circumstances, we

do not find any substance in the Appeal.

Now, the Counsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant may be

given time to deposit the money.

We decline to admit this Appeal. The Appeal is rejected. However, if the

Appellant deposits money with the RP within 15 days from today, the

Appellant may be allowed by the RP to lodged its claim, against Corporate

Debtor.

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

[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)

[V.P. Singh] Member (Technical) /rs/gc

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.1149 of 2019