Dismissed

Ms Bostin Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Indian Bank

DRT17 Apr 2025SA/18/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an application for a stay on a demand notice and the second appeal as not maintainable. It held that during the moratorium period under the IBC, the tenant board representatives possess authority, and the borrower must file recovery proceedings, rendering these filings untenable.

What did the court decide?

IA/1075/2025 not maintainable due to moratorium; Second Appeal dismissed as not maintainable as no measures under Section 13(4) were taken by the Bank.

Case No.SA/	18/2024 MS BOSTIN ENGINEERS PVT LTD AND ANR Vs INDIAN BANK	Office action with
Date of the Order	Order with Signature	date and dated Signature of Parties when necessary
17/04/2025	Ld. Counsel appears for Sarfaesi Applicant. Ld. Counsels Mr. Santosh Kr. Ray, Ms. Zebu Khan, Ms. Asmita Lohia and Ms. Koushiki Bandyopadhyay appear for Respondent Bank. Ld. Counsel for Applicant moves IA/1075/2025 for stay in operation of notice dated 14/02/2025. Ld. Counsel for Applicant submits that there is CIRP proceeding against Applicant Company and there is moratorium which is revealed from the demand notice in respect of mortgaged assets no. 1 and 3. Ld. Counsel for Respondent Bank files Affidavit in Opposition annexing the order of NCLT- Division Bench- Court no. 2- Kolkata dated 01/04/2025. Ld. Counsel for Respondent Bank submits that as per Section 17(1)(b) of the IBC_“the_ powers of the board of directors or the partners of the corporate debtor, as the case may be, shall stand suspended and be exercised by the interim resolution professional”.Ld. Counsel for Respondent Bank also refers Section 25(2)(b) which speaks that“the resolution professional shall represent and act on behalf of the corporate debtor with third parties, exercise rights for the benefit of the corporate debtor in judicial, quasi-judicial or arbitration proceedings”. But the IA has been filed by Applicant No. 1 who is one of the directors of the company. As per the provision of Section 17(1)(b), IA filed by Applicant company is not maintainable. Besides, Applicant has filed this SA and IA challenging

Case No.SA/

18/2024
MS BOSTIN ENGINEERS PVT LTD AND ANR
Vs
INDIAN BANK

Office action with

Date of
the Order

Order with Signature

date and dated
Signature of
Parties when
necessary

17/04/2025

Ld. Counsel appears for Sarfaesi Applicant.
Ld. Counsels Mr. Santosh Kr. Ray, Ms. Zebu Khan, Ms.
Asmita Lohia and Ms. Koushiki Bandyopadhyay appear for
Respondent Bank.
Ld. Counsel for Applicant moves IA/1075/2025 for stay in
operation of notice dated 14/02/2025. Ld. Counsel for Applicant
submits that there is CIRP proceeding against Applicant
Company and there is moratorium which is revealed from the
demand notice in respect of mortgaged assets no. 1 and 3.
Ld. Counsel for Respondent Bank files Affidavit in
Opposition annexing the order of NCLT- Division Bench- Court
no. 2- Kolkata dated 01/04/2025. Ld. Counsel for Respondent
Bank submits that as per Section 17(1)(b) of the IBC_“the_
powers of the board of directors or the partners of the
corporate debtor, as the case may be, shall stand suspended
and be exercised by the interim resolution professional”.Ld.
Counsel for Respondent Bank also refers Section 25(2)(b) which
speaks that“the resolution professional shall represent and act
on behalf of the corporate debtor with third parties, exercise
rights for the benefit of the corporate debtor in judicial,
quasi-judicial or arbitration proceedings”.
But the IA has been filed by Applicant No. 1 who is one of
the directors of the company. As per the provision of Section
17(1)(b), IA filed by Applicant company is not maintainable.
Besides, Applicant has filed this SA and IA challenging

Date of
the Order

Order with Signature

Office action with
date and dated
Signature of
Parties when
necessary

the demand notice but the borrower or any other person can file
application under section 17(1) after measures under 13(4) is
taken.
Besides, as there is moratorium under section 14(1) by

the Hon’ble NCLT- Kolkata, no order can be passed in
IA/1075/2025, so also in the SA.
Hence, IA/1075/2025 is not maintainable in view of
moratorium. The SA is also not maintainable as the Bank has
not taken any measures.
Both SA and IA are disposed of as not maintainable.

(Ambuja Mohan Das)
Presiding Officer

Ms Bostin Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Bostin Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Indian 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

Kotla Ramakrishna Reddy versus Canara Bank

Prashanta Chakraborty and Anr. versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

Mr Anoop Saxena and Anr. versus Idfc Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Sri Goutam Roy

Union Bank of India versus Vandan Agarwal

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Vardhan H Jaiswal