Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: ss. 14, 17 and 7 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Power of High Court u/s. 482, if can override statutory provisions of IBC – On facts, NCLT admitted application u/s. 7 IBC against one NPIL and subsequently appellant was appointed as Resolution Professional – Appellant alleging that the respondent-operational creditor, transferred Rs 32.50 lakhs from the Corporate Debtor’s bank account without the appellant’s sanction in violation of s. 14 – Appellant then filed an FIR against the respondent – Respondent filing petition u/s.482 before the High Court – Respondent also filed an application for allowing it to use its bank account over which lien had been created and the frozen accounts of its creditors – High Court lifted the lien created on the respondent’s bank account, and allowed the respondent to operate the bank account over which lien had been created and the accounts of its creditors frozen in connection with the FIR – On appeal, held: Power u/s. 482 may not be available to the court to countenance the breach of a statuary provision – Words ‘to secure the ends of justice’ in s. 482 cannot mean to overlook the undermining of a statutory dictate, provisions of ss. 14 and 17 of the IBC – High Court overlooked the salutary limits on its power u/s. 482 – Order of the High Court resulting in the respondent No. 1 being allowed to operate the account without making good the amount of Rs 32.50 lakhs to be placed in the account of the Corporate Debtor, cannot be sustained – Respondent No.1 is allowed to operate its account subject to first remitting Rs
32.50 lakhs into the account of the Corporate Debtor. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In this case an application filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was admitted, the appellant was appointed as the interim resolution professional and a moratorium was declared. With the declaration of the moratorium the prohibitions as enacted in section 14 came into force. It is clear that the assets of the company would include the amounts lying to the credit in the bank accounts. There cannot be any dispute that well after the order under section 14 was passed, a sum of Rs. 32.50 lakhs has been remitted into the account of Respondent No.1 company. No doubt it is the definite case of the Respondent No.1 that it has had business relations with the Corporate Debtor since more than 15 years and that the amount remitted in its account represented the price of the materials supplied to the Corporate Debtor. Apart from this amount a sum of rupees more than Rs.39 lakhs is still due. It is to be noticed that though an appeal was filed against the order admitting the petition under Section 7 the same was dismissed by the NCLAT. The appellate order was undoubtedly set aside by this court and the appeal remanded to the NCLT for its consideration. Setting aside the appellate order of the NCLAT by this Court and remanding the appeal would not have the effect of setting aside the order admitting the application. Initially, an order was passed on 28.02.2020. The ambiguity created by the said order was removed by the subsequent order of the Tribunal dated 20.03.2020. In other words, by the order dated 20.03.2020 the NCLT ordered that the appellant was at liberty to act as per law and the words used in the earlier order dated 28.02.2020 relied upon by the Respondent No.1 were found to be a mere casual observation which did not culminate into any direction. Furthermore, there is an FIR and which is pending consideration in the High Court also. The appellant is essentially aggrieved by the transactions representing a sum of Rs. 32.50 lakhs all of which took place after order dated 20.03.2020. [Para 16][133-A-G]
1.2 In the interim order passed by the NCLT Guwahati, the Tribunal had directed the Directors to refund the amount of the Corporate Debtor less any amount paid for supplies. It is also true that the review petition filed by the Appellant is dismissed, essentially based on the limitations on the power of review. [Para 17][133-G-H]
1.3 The provisions of the IBC contemplate resolution of the insolvency if possible, in the first instance and should it not be possible, the winding up of the Corporate Debtor. The role of the insolvency professional is neatly carved out. From the date of admission of application and the appointment of Interim Resolution Professional, the management of the affairs of the Corporate Debtor is to vest in the Interim Resolution Professional. With such appointment, the powers of the Board of Directors or the partners of the Corporate Debtor as the case may be are to stand suspended. Section 17 further declares that the powers of the Board of Directors or partners are to be exercised by the Interim Resolution Professional. The financial institutions are to act on the instructions of the Interim Resolution Professional. Section 14 is emphatic, subject to the provisions of sub section (2) and (3). The impact of the moratorium includes prohibition of transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the Corporate Debtor of any of its assets. Furthermore, Section 14 (2A) was inserted with effect from 28.12.2019. No doubt under this provision goods or services not covered by Section 14(2) are also covered. The call however is to be taken by the IRP/RP. Raw material supply could fall within the provision. The IRP/RP must take a decision guided purely by the object of the IBC and the provisions and the factual matrix. [Para 18, 22][134-A-D; 135-C-D]
1.4 With the appointment of Committee of Creditors, a Resolution Professional is to be appointed. The Resolution Professional is thereafter to conduct the resolution process and manage the operations. Section 23 (2) makes it clear that his power is the same as the powers of the Interim Resolution Professional. Undoubtedly, the Resolution Professional is bound to seek prior approval of the Committee of Creditors in matters covered by Section 28. [Para 23][135-D-F]
1.5 The High Court appears to have, in passing the impugned order, which is an interim order for that matter, overlooked the salutary limits on its power under Section 482. The power under Section 482 may not be available to the Court to countenance the breach of a statuary provision. The words ‘to secure the ends of justice’ in Section 482 cannot mean to overlook the undermining of a statutory dictate, which in this case is the provisions of Section 14, and Section 17 of the IBC. [Para 24] [135-F-G]
1.6 Having regard to the orders passed by the NCLT admitting the application, under Section 7, and also the ordering of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC and the orders which have been passed by the tribunal otherwise, the order of the High Court resulting in the Respondent No. 1 being allowed to operate the account without making good the amount of Rs 32.50 lakhs to be placed in the account of the Corporate Debtor cannot be sustained. The appellant has also no objection in the Respondent No. 1 being allowed to operate its account subject to it remitting an amount of Rs. 32.50 lakhs into the account of the Corporate Debtor. The Respondent No.1 is allowed to operate its account subject to it to first remitting into the account of the Corporate Debtor, the amount of Rs 32.50 lakhs which stood paid to it by the management of the Corporate Debtor. The assets of the Corporate Debtor shall be managed strictly in terms of the provisions of the IBC. [Para 25][135-G-H; 136-A-C]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.