Section 7 or 9 of the ‘I&B Code ”. Vide the said order, the Hon’ble NCLAT also decided in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 10 of 2018 holding that, the Adjudicating Authority having failed to notice that the ‘Usurious Loans Act, 1918’, is not applicable for initiation of ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’, we set aside the order dated 15th November, 2017, passed in the said appeal and remit the case to the Adjudicating Authority for hearing the application for admission after notice to the parties. This order was taken in Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Appeal was dismissed holding that it will be open for the appellant to press the issue of rate of interest and application of the Usurious Loans Act, before the National Company Law Tribunal, if so advised . On a combined reading of these orders, this Bench finds that issue in that case was whether the extortionate interest can form part of debt for consideration of application u/s. 7 of IBC in the light of Section 3 of Usurious Loans Act, 1918. Though this issue was decided by the Hon’ble NCLAT, but Hon’ble Supreme Court, without giving any opinion on this issue, permitted the Appellant to raise application of usurious loan Act before NCLT in remand proceedings. Accordingly, the Bench is of the considered view that Respondents reliance on NCLAT decision in case of Naveen Luthra (supra) was not misleading. In the matter of Sanjeev Mahajan Vs. Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) & Anr (2022) ibclaw.in 942 , the Hon’ble NCLAT dismissed the contempt application holding that there were certain difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of the order and views expressed in the CoC meetings regarding the interpretation of the Order dated 04.07.2022 cannot amount to any contempt.
