AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 781 of 2018 -4- 230 of the Companies Act, 2013
  • Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
  • Section 60(5) of the I&B Code
  • Section 14 of the I&B Code
  • Section 53 of the I&B Code,
  • Section 14(1) (d),
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 781 of 2018 -4- 230 of the Companies Act, 2013
  • Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
  • Section 60(5) of the I&B Code
  • Section 14 of the I&B Code
  • Section 53 of the I&B Code,
  • Section 14(1) (d),
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a Financial Creditor of a related entity of Sterling Biotech Limited (the Corporate Debtor), challenged an order dated 7th December 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench-I. The order was issued in response to the Resolution Professional's application directing the Appellant to explain why action should not be taken against it under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code). The Resolution Professional filed an application under Section 60(5) of the I&B Code seeking directions against the Appellant to return possession of the B Wing premises of Lakshmi Towers and to restrain the Appellant from taking action regarding the A Wing premises pursuant to notices issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Adjudicating Authority allowed this application, directing the Appellant to return possession of the B Wing premises and restraining further action on the A Wing premises.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the order of moratorium under Section 14 of the I&B Code applies to the A and B Wings premises of Lakshmi Towers, which do not belong to the Corporate Debtor but from which the Corporate Debtor operates.
  2. Whether the Appellant was justified in evicting employees of the Corporate Debtor from the premises under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act during the moratorium period.
  3. Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in directing the Appellant to return possession of the B Wing premises and restraining action against the A Wing premises.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • The A and B Wings premises of Lakshmi Towers do not belong to the Corporate Debtor but are third-party properties.
  • Therefore, the moratorium under Section 14 of the I&B Code should not apply to these premises.

Resolution Professional's Arguments

  • The A and B Wings premises do not belong to the Corporate Debtor, but the Corporate Debtor's office operates from these premises.
  • The employees of the Corporate Debtor were evicted under notices issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, which should not have occurred.
  • Eviction of employees amounts to obstruction in maintaining the Corporate Debtor as a going concern.
  • The Appellant has already returned possession of the B Wing premises and has not disturbed the Corporate Debtor from the A Wing premises.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged that although the A and B Wings premises do not belong to the Corporate Debtor, Section 14(1)(d) of the I&B Code prevents the Corporate Debtor from being ejected or disturbed from the premises during the moratorium. The Court found the Adjudicating Authority's direction to the Appellant to return possession of the B Wing premises and to refrain from evicting the Corporate Debtor from the A Wing premises to be correct. The Court clarified that questions regarding ownership of the premises and the Appellant's rights over them are not to be decided in insolvency proceedings under the I&B Code. Such matters may be addressed in a competent court if necessary. Additionally, the Court noted that under Section 53 of the I&B Code, the Liquidator cannot sell the assets of the premises in question.

Holding and Implications

The Court disposed of the appeal, holding that no further explanation from the Appellant was required and that the Adjudicating Authority was correct in its directions regarding possession and restraint on eviction. The matter against the Appellant was ordered to be closed with no costs awarded. The direct effect of this decision is that the Appellant must comply with the moratorium protections afforded to the Corporate Debtor in relation to the premises, but no new precedent was established beyond the facts of the case.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. v. Sundresh Bhatt, Resolution Professional Sterling Biotech Ltd. .

    31.07.2019 The Appellant, a Financial Creditor of a related entity of Sterling Biotech Limited- (Corporate Debtor), challenged the order dated 7th December, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench-I, Mumbai, whereby in view of the stand as was taken by the Resolution Professional on his application, the Appellant was directed to explain as to why action should not be taken against it under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code for short).

    2. The Resolution Professional filed application under Section 60(5) of the I&B Code seeking directions against the Appellant to return the physical possession of the B Wing premises of Lakshmi Towers to the Contd/-. Resolution Professional and to restrain the Appellant from taking any action in relation to A Wing premises pursuant to the notices issued by the Appellant under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

    3. The Adjudicating Authority, on hearing the parties, allowed the application filed by the Resolution Professional and directed the Appellant to immediately return the physical possession of the B Wing premises to the Resolution Professional and restrained the Appellant from taking any further action in relation to A Wing premises pursuant to the notices issued by the Appellant under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

    4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the immovable property, in question, i.e. A & B Wings premises of Lakshmi Towers do not belong to the Corporate Debtor and being a third party property, the order of Moratorium passed under Section 14 of the I&B Code will not be applicable.

    5. The Resolution Professional/ Liquidator in its reply has accepted that both A and B Wing premises of Lakshmi Towers do not belong to the Corporate Debtor. However, it is stated that the office of the Corporate Debtor is running from the said premises and it was the employees of the Corporate Debtor who have been evicted persons under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 781 of 2018

    6. According to learned counsel for the Liquidator, the Appellant should not have evicted the employees from the premises, in question, which amounts to obstruction in the matter of keeping the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. It is informed that the Appellant has already handed over the possession of B Wing of Lakshmi Towers and not disturbed Corporate Debtor from the A Wing of the said Lakshmi Towers.

    7. Although A and B Wings premises of Lakshmi Towers do not belong to the Corporate Debtor, in view of Section 14(1) (d), the Corporate Debtor cannot be ejected or disturbed from the premises, in question, during the Moratorium.

    8. For the said reason, we hold that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly directed the Appellant to hand over the possession of B Wing premises of Lakshmi Towers and rightly prohibited the Appellant from evicting the Corporate Debtor from A Wing premises of Lakshmi Towers.

    9. So far as the question as to who is the owner of A and B Wings premises of Lakshmi Towers and whether the Appellant has any right over the said property, such questions are not required to be determined in the proceeding under the I&B Code. If the Corporate Debtor is saved during the liquidation proceeding pursuant to Section Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 781 of 2018

    230 of the Companies Act, 2013 or if it is sold to a third party along with the employees then, in such case, one may move before the Competent Court of law for appropriate decision.

    10. On the other hand, if action is taken under Section 53 of the I&B Code, the Liquidator cannot sell the assets of the premises in question.

    11. In view of the aforesaid position of law, we feel that no further explanation is required to be given by the Appellant. The Adjudicating Authority will close the matter against the Appellant. The appeal stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson (Justice A.I.S. Cheema) Member(Judicial) (Kanthi Narahari) Member(Technical) Ar/g Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 781 of 2018

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. v. Sundresh Bhatt, Resolution Professional Sterling Biotech Ltd. .
    (Jul 31, 2019)