Allowed

Niteen Parulekar Architects Private Limited v. State Bank of India

DRT28 Feb 2024SA/36/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In IA No.427/2024, the-DRT restrained the Respondent Bank from taking physical possession of the property or proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, directing that such measures wait until the interim moratorium under Section 94 of the IBC, 2016 ceases to apply.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Bank directed not to proceed further under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 until the interim moratorium prevails.

Niteen Parulekar Architects Private Limited versus State… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

28/02/2024 Ex. Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Next date
No. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai.
Order in IA No.427/2024
in
SA No.36/2023
Niteen Parulekar Architects Private Limited
& Ors. Vs. State Bank of India
Advocate Puneet Gogad i/b Adv Radhika C. appeared
for the Applicants.
Advocate Aparna Bhosle appeared for the
Respondent.
IA No.427/2024
1. By way of the present IA, the Applicants
prayed to restrain the Respondent from taking
physical possession of the property i.e. Flat No.103,
Wing “A”, Charkop Shree Gannayak CHSL, Plot
No.-1, Charkop, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067
(“property in question”) owned by Applicant No.3;
and stay the entire SARFAESI action of the
respondent by virtue of petition under Section 94
under IBC, 2016 bearing No.2709138/01911/2024.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Ld. Counsel for the Applicants stated that the
Applicant No.3 has filed the Petition under Section
94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
(“IBC, 2016”) before the NCLT, therefore, interim
DRT1 MUMBAI

¶2

¶3

moratorium came into effect from the date of filing of the Insolvency Petition, thus the Respondent may
DRT1 MUMBAI be restrain from taking measure under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 4. In support of his Contention Ld. Counsel for the Applicants relied upon the order of Hon’ble DRAT, Mumbai in Shailesh Dilipbhai Shah Vs. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors. (IA No.96/2024 (WoD) in Appeal on Diary No.206/2024). 5. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for Respondent strongly objected to the present IA and submits that since the Petition filed by the Applicant No.3 with the Ld. NCLT is still not been registered therefore, the Interim Moratorium would not be applicable. She relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Jeny Thankachan Vs. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) No.31502/2023 6. Considered the contentions of the parties on the issue of ‘interim moratorium’. 7. As stated by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicants that a Petition under Section 94 of the IBC, 2016, has been filed by the Applicant No.3, thus, in terms of order of Hon’ble DRAT, Mumbai in Shailesh Dilipbhai (Supra) the interim moratorium would be applicable upon all the proceedings including the

moratorium came into effect from the date of filing
of the Insolvency Petition, thus the Respondent may

DRT1 MUMBAI
be
restrain
from
taking
measure
under
the
SARFAESI Act, 2002.
4.
In support of his Contention Ld. Counsel for
the Applicants relied upon the order of Hon’ble
DRAT, Mumbai in Shailesh Dilipbhai Shah Vs.
Indiabulls
Housing
Finance
Ltd.
&
Ors.
(IA
No.96/2024
(WoD)
in
Appeal
on
Diary
No.206/2024).
5.
On the other hand Ld. Counsel for Respondent
strongly objected to the present IA and submits that
since the Petition filed by the Applicant No.3 with
the Ld. NCLT is still not been registered therefore,
the Interim Moratorium would not be applicable.
She relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Kerala
High Court in Jeny Thankachan Vs. Union of India &
Ors., WP(C) No.31502/2023
6.
Considered the contentions of the parties on
the issue of ‘interim moratorium’.
7.
As stated by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicants
that a Petition under Section 94 of the IBC, 2016, has
been filed by the Applicant No.3, thus, in terms of
order
of
Hon’ble
DRAT,
Mumbai
in
Shailesh
Dilipbhai (Supra) the interim moratorium would be
applicable upon all the proceedings including the

¶4

¶5

SARFAESI proceeding. The relevant para of the said order is inter alia extracted herein below: “5…..It has to be observed that the interim moratorium is a statutory injunction that prevents any creditor from proceeding with the realization of the debt. Since Sec. 96 of the IBC itself describes it as an ‘interim moratorium’, it is for the NCLT to decide whether the statutory moratorium u/s 96 has to be extended or vacated. The D.R.T. cannot shut the debtor out as the statutory moratorium came into effect immediately on applying u/s 95, and once the existence of such a moratorium is brought to the notice of the D.R.T., it cannot permit the creditors to proceed with the SARFAESI measures….” (emphasis provided) 8. Therefore, the Respondent Bank is hereby directed not to proceed further under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, till the interim moratorium prevails. 9. With the abovesaid direction, the present IA is disposed off. PO DRT-I

¶6

Niteen Parulekar Architects Private Limited v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niteen Parulekar Architects Private Limited v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Idbi Bank versus Minal

Uco Bank versus Suhail

Uco Bank versus Amyn

Salil Shashikant Telang and Anr. versus State Bank of India

Idbi Bank versus Raja Arvind Nair

Idbi Bank versus Balkrishna Ramchandra Desai