IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Avinash G. Gharote, J.
Tata Capital Limited - Appellant
Versus
Geeta Passi & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.7477 of 2024
Decided On : 20-06-2024
MORATORIUM - INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE - Sections 3(11), 14, 96 - The court discussed the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IB Code), particularly Sections 3(11) defining 'debt', Section 14 concerning corporate debtors, and Section 96 regarding the moratorium for personal guarantors. The court interpreted that the moratorium under Section 96 applies to all debts of the personal guarantor and prohibits any legal action against them during its operation. This interpretation influenced the court's decision to uphold the arbitrator's order to keep proceedings in abeyance, as it recognized the comprehensive nature of the moratorium that encompasses all debts, irrespective of the parties involved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a finance company, sought to continue arbitration proceedings against the legal heirs of a deceased guarantor after a moratorium was granted under the IB Code to the principal debtor and another guarantor. The arbitrator had stayed the proceedings based on the moratorium, leading to the petitioner's challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the arbitrator's decision to stay the proceedings was not perverse or lacking jurisdiction. It upheld the interpretation that the moratorium under Section 96 of the IB Code applies to all debts, including those involving guarantors, thus justifying the stay of arbitration proceedings.
Issues: Whether the moratorium under Section 96 of the IB Code applies to the arbitration proceedings against the legal heirs of a deceased guarantor, and whether the arbitrator's order to stay the proceedings was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the moratorium under Section 96 of the IB Code is comprehensive and applies to all debts, including those of guarantors, thereby justifying the arbitrator's decision to stay proceedings against the legal heirs of the deceased guarantor.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, affirming the arbitrator's order to keep the arbitration proceedings in abeyance due to the ongoing moratorium under the IB Code.
JUDGMENT
Avinash G. Gharote, J. - The petition questions the order dated 07.10.2022 (page-48) by which the learned arbitrator has kept the proceedings before him in abeyance as long as the moratorium under Section 95 of the IB Code 2016 operates in respect of the debts owed by the respondent No.2/Tarun Kapoor were concerned and the subsequent order dated 20.03.2023 refusing to vacate the aforesaid order (page -51).
2. The facts leading to the present petition in brief are as under:
ii) The Petitioner thereafter initiated arbitration proceedings before Gulnar A. Mistry, Advocate who was appointed as Arbitrator.
iii) During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings an application namely C.P (IB) - 1097(ND)/2020 came to be filed by Volkswagen Finance Pvt. Ltd against SMC Mr. Tarun Kapoor, as a result of which an application came to be filed by Mr. Tarun Kapoor and Mrs.Pavan Kapoor before the Arbitral Tribunal, contending that in view of Sec.96 of the IB Code, a moratorium had come into effect due to the above proceedings on account of which the Arbitral proceedings were required to be kept in abeyance. The learned Arbitrator by the order dated 11/1/2021 (pg.64) accorded the benefit of the moratorium to Mr. Tarun Kapoor, the proprietor of SMC and one of the guarantors Smt. Pavan Kapoor and proceedings against them were directed to remain in abeyance, but the arbitration proceedings against the respondents 4 & 5 were directed to continue.
iv) The NCLT proceedings continued and the Member Judicial (NCLT) New Delhi, Court - III, by the order dated 04.01.2021 (Page-52) appointed Mr. Kamal Agarwal as the Resolution Professional (RP) and also passed an interim moratorium order in the following terms:
'10. It is made known to everyone that one filing this application by the Applicant/Creditor the interim-moratorium commences as is stipulated under Section 96 (1)(a) in relation to all the debts of the personal guarantor and shall cease to have effect on the date of admission of this Application and during the interim moratorium period the following is prohibited:
a. Any pending legal action or proceedings in respect of any debt of the personal guarantor shall be deemed to have been stayed; and
b. The creditors of the personal guarantor shall not initiate any legal action or proceedings in respect of any debt.
c. The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator.'
v) By an order dated 11.01.2021 (Page 57) the earlier order dated 04.01.2021 was rectified by changing of name as Mr.Tarun Kapoor, instead of Mrs. Pavan Kapoor and so also the dates as indicated therein.
vi) In the application filed by Volkswagen Finance Pvt. Ltd. being C.P (IB)-25 (ND)/2021 under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IB Code) r/w Rule 7(2) of the IB Code (Application to Adjudicating Authority for IRP for personal guarantors to (C.D.) Rules 2019 against Smt. Pavan Kapoor, by an order dated 03.02.2021 (Page 59) the Member Judicial (NCLT) New Delhi, Court - III appointed one Kamal Agarwal as Resolution Professional and also granted a moratorium in the following terms: ( Page -61)
'10. It is made known to everyone that on filing this Application by the Applicant/Creditor the interim moratorium commences as is stipulat
Bhaven Construction Vs. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. (2022) 1 SCC 75
Deep Industries Ltd Vs. ONGC (2020) 15 SCC 706
Mukesh Gupta Vs. SICOM Ltd. 2004 (1) MhL.J. 159
SBP & Co. Vs. Patel Engineer Ltd and Anr. 2005 8 SCC 618
State Bank of India Vs. V Ramkrishnan and Anr. (2018) 17 SCC 394
The moratorium under Section 96 of the IB Code applies to all debts, including those of personal guarantors, and prohibits any legal action against them during its operation.
Moratoriums under Sections 14 and 96 of IBC against corporate and personal guarantors do not bar recovery proceedings against principal borrower with no insolvency proceedings initiated against it, d....
The interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC does not apply to corporate debtor's properties, allowing SARFAESI actions against them while protecting only the personal guarantor's assets.
Section 95 applications filed during interim moratorium under Section 96 are non est ab initio; subsequent withdrawal of triggering applications does not validate them.
An interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, upon a valid application against a personal guarantor, operates to stay all pending legal actions and prohibits the....
Interim moratorium under IBC Section 96 does not bar SARFAESI sale certificate or possession if auction notice published, auction held, and sale confirmed before Section 94 filing, as guarantor's rig....
The initiation of arbitration is impermissible due to an existing moratorium that restrains all legal proceedings, including arbitration, until the related insolvency matters are resolved.
NCLT lacks power to extend PIRP moratorium beyond 180 days under S.101(1) IBC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.