Allowed

Apresh Garg & Anr. v. Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank)

Delhi HC4 Mar 2024W.P.(C)/3217/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi, via a writ petition, quashed an interim order dated 04th January 2024 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, directing that said proceedings remain stayed complying with the statutory moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

What did the court decide?

Prayer (a) allowed; interlocutory order dated 04-01-2024 quashed; DRT proceedings stayed under Section 96(1)(b)(i) of the IBC.

Apresh Garg & Anr. Vs Indian Bank (Erstwhile… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~44

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3217/2024 APRESH GARG & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Kunal Sachdeva, Ms. Srishti Bajpai and Mr. Prakhar Mithal, Advocates

¶4

versus

¶5

INDIAN BANK (ERSTWHILE ALLAHABAD BANK)

¶6

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Mr. Anant Gautam, Mr. R.P. Daida, Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Mr. Anani Achumi and Ms. Shivani Sagar, Advocates

¶7

% Date of Decision: 4^th March, 2024

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶10

J U D G M E N T

¶11

MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL)

¶12

CM APPL. 13212/2024 (For exemption)

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.

¶15

W.P.(C) 3217/2024

¶16

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 04^th January, 2024

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

W.P.(C) 3217/2024

¶20

Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 6.03.2024 13:16:28

¶21

passed in O.A. No. 654/2023 pending before Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (‘DRT’).

¶22

The Respondent Bank filed an O.A. before the DRT against the principal borrower firm M/s Agson Global Private Limited (‘borrower firm’) and the Petitioners herein, on 25^th August, 2023. 3. The Respondent thereafter initiated personal insolvency proceedings against the Petitioners by filing an application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) registered as IB/745/ND/2023 and IB/746/ND/2023. In the said application the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (‘NCLT’) passed an order dated 20^th December, 2023 appointing a Resolution Professional (‘RP’). 4. It is stated that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (‘CIRP’) has also been initiated against the borrower firm by NCLT vide order dated 30^th January, 2024 passed in CP (IB) No. 614(ND) of 2023 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that in view of the institution of the application under Section 95 of IBC, the interim moratorium has come into effect at the instance of the Respondent itself. 5.1 He states that under Section 96 of IBC, there is a statutory moratorium and therefore, Petitioners cannot submit themselves to the authority which has no jurisdiction as per the said moratorium.

¶23

5.2 He states that Petitioners could not have filed and maintained the O.A. before DRT in view of the pendency of the CIRP proceedings against the borrower firm and the Petitioners herein.

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

W.P.(C) 3217/2024

¶27

Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 6.03.2024 13:16:28

¶28

5.3 He states that the Respondent has suppressed this material fact from DRT and obtained the impugned order dated 04^th January, 2024 in teeth of statutory prohibition contained in Section 96 of IBC.

¶29

In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent states that the O.A. was filed on 25^th August,2023 i.e., much prior to the filing of the Section 95 IBC application against the Petitioners. He states that therefore, the allegation of suppression or fraud as alleged by the Petitioners is contrary to the record and misconceived. He states that the said proceedings are liable to be stayed and not to be quashed as alleged.

¶30

6.1 He fairly concedes that the interim order dated 04^th January, 2024 passed in O.A. No. 654/2023 could not have been passed in light of the statutory moratorium.

¶31

In response, learned counsel for the Petitioners admits that the O.A. was filed before DRT prior in time on 25^th August, 2023.

¶32

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶33

In view of the admitted facts, prayer (a) of the petition is allowed and the interlocutory order dated 04^th January, 2024 is quashed. With respect to proceedings i.e., O.A. No. 654/2023 pending before DRT it is directed that the same shall remain stayed in terms of Section 96(1)(b)(i) of the IBC and the said proceedings shall abide by any further orders to be passed by the competent authority under the IBC.

¶34

With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Page 3 of 4

¶37

W.P.(C) 3217/2024

¶38

Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 6.03.2024 13:16:28

¶39

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶40

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶41

MARCH 4, 2024/ msh/sk

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Page 4 of 4

¶44

W.P.(C) 3217/2024

¶45

Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 6.03.2024 13:16:28

Apresh Garg & Anr. v. Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apresh Garg & Anr. v. Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tau Devi Lal Memorial College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education

R S Memorial College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education

Dr Sonali Badhe Vs Union of India and Ors.

Safety Matters Foundation & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Vijendra Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ojaswi Bundela Vs Union of India & Ors.

Deepak Marwah, Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Mohan Lal Gaba Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes Income Tax Department

Nitin Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation of Dellhi & Ors.

Suresh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Jsc Ia Vozrozhdenie Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sonakshi (Minor) through Natural Guardian Mr. Rakesh Vs Pp International School & Anr.

Sheetal Dhariwal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Baljeet Kapoor Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies & Ors.