On July 31, 2018, the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) passed an order in the case of Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. vs. P. Mohanraj (Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 306 of 2018) in relation to the Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888 (“Act”) and Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
Whether the order of moratorium will cover a criminal proceeding under Section 138 of the Act?
Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (“the Appellant”) herein has filed Company Petition No. 507/IB/2017 before the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench (“NCLT”) against M/s. Diamond Engineering Chennai Pvt. Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”) for a debt of Rs. 24, 80, 33, 430 (Rupees twenty four crore eighty lakh thirty three thousand four hundred thirty). In view of the nonpayment of debt by P. Mohanraj (“the Respondents”), the Hon’ble NCLT vide its order dated June 6, 2017 admitted the Company Petition and appointed the Interim Resolution Professional. Moratorium was also declared and Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor. Before the commencement of the CIRP, the Appellant had filed CC No. 552/SS/2017 before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 59th Court, Kurla, Mumbai. After the commencement of the CIRP, the Appellant filed CC No. 690/ SS/ 2017.
In MA/102/IB/2018 in CP/507/IB/2017 filed by the Respondents, the Hon’ble NCLT by its order dated May 24, 2018 has held that the Appellant had filed proceedings against Corporate Debtor inspite of the order of moratorium dated June 6, 2017. Further, the Appellant was directed to withdraw the aforesaid complaints forthwith, failing which appropriate order would be passed for violation of the moratorium.
The order dated May 24, 2018 was assailed by the Appellant before the Hon’ble NCLAT. The Hon’ble NCLAT after referring to the aforesaid facts and Section 14 of the IBC has held in para 6 “… Section 138 is a penal provision, which empowers the Court of competent jurisdiction to pass order of imprisonment or fine, which cannot be held to be proceeding or any judgment or decree of money claim. Imposition of fine cannot held to be a money claim or recovery against the Corporate Debtor nor order of imprisonment, if passed by the court of competent jurisdiction on the Directors, they cannot come within the purview of Section 14. Infact no criminal proceeding is covered under Section 14 of I&B Code…”.
The Appeal was accordingly allowed.
11, 1st Floor, Free Press House
215, Nariman Point
Mumbai – 400021
9 – 10 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
Delhi – 110002
+91 11 23701284/5/7
155, ESC House, 2nd floor,
Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase 3,
New Delhi – 110020
68 Nandidurga Road
Bengaluru – 560046
3rd Floor, 27B Camac Street
Kolkata – 700016
The rules of the Bar Council of India do not permit advocates to solicit work or advertise in any manner. This website has been created only for informational purposes and is not intended to constitute solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work in any manner. By clicking on 'Agree' below, you acknowledge and confirm the following:
a) there has been no solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website;
b) you are desirous of obtaining further information about us on your own accord and for your use;
c) no information or material provided on this website is to be construed as a legal opinion and use of this website will not create any lawyer-client relationship;
d) while reasonable care has been taken in ensuring the accuracy of the contents of the website, Argus Partners shall not be responsible for the results of any actions taken on the basis of information provided in this website or for any error or omission in the website; and
e) in cases where the user has any legal issues, the user must seek independent legal advice.