The court established that the Rajasthan Stamps Act allows for independent proceedings regarding stamp duty, and the IBC moratorium does not apply to non-corporate debtors.

JUDGMENT

1. The matter comes up on an application filed by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the stay granted by this Court on 30/07/2021.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that by an interim order, this Court restrained the respondents from proceeding further in pursuance of notice dated 27/04/2021 issued under Section 37 read with Section 51 and 53 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act directing the petitioner-company to pay requisite stamps duty on the documents which were executed as Asset Credit Agreement and other ancillary documents as mentioned in the notice. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is a case of evasion of stamps duty for which the Deputy Inspector General, Registration & Stamp (Tax Evasion) Rajasthan Jaipur Special Circle & Ex-Officio Collector (Stamp), Jaipur (Rajasthan) alone is empowered to issue notice and the reason put forward by the petitioner's counsel and taken into consideration for granting of an interim stay is not admissible. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a creditor company and does not have a locus to challenge the notice under Section 37 ofthe Rajasthan Stamps Act which is essentially issued to the debtor namely; Jaipur Metals and Electricals Limited.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the vacation of stay and in these circumstances, learned counsel for both the sides were heard on merits of the case.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Asset Reconstruction Company and was originally incorporated in the name of 'Dhir & Dhir Asset Reconstruction & Securitization Company Ltd.1. The petitioner-company, in furtherance of its business activities and interests, acquired the secured loans of the respondent no.3-Jaipur Metals & Electricals Ltd. (for short, 'JMEL') from Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. (for short, 'IDBI') and for the said purpose of acquisition of said loan advanced by IDBI to JMEL, the petitioner-company entered into an Assignment Agreement dated 11/10/2007 with IDBI. The borrower company namely; JMEL was taken over by the State Government in the year 1986 by the Jaipur Metals and Electricals Limited (Acquisition of Shares) Act, 1986. The IDBI had earlier entered into a loan agreement dated 23/03/1995 with JMEL and a Deed of Hypothecation was also executed between IDBI and JMEL. A mortgage deed was also executed on 07/04/1995. Another loan agreement was executed on 21/03/1996 and Deed of Hypothecation was executed on 21/03/1996. A Joint Mortgage Deed was also executed on 11/04/1996 creating first charge and second charge. On 02/06/1999, the JMEL was declared as a 'Sick undertaking1 and in absence of any revival proposal, the BIFR formed an opinion on 17/04/2001 to wind up the JMEL. The BIFR vide order dated 26/09/2002 formed its opinion to wind up the JMEL and the bank snamely; State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur-SBBJ (now SBI), Central Bank of India and State Bank of Indore (now SBI) moved application for recovery of dues. The State Bank of Indore (now SBI) loan was assigned in favour of the petitioner-company. The SBBJ (now SBI) also executed an Assignment Agreement of Loan on SBBJ to petitioner-Company.

5. The Winding Up Petition was registered as Company Petition No. 19/2009 before this Court whereafter the petitioner-company filed proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, 'IBC') before the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, 'NCLT') on 10/01/2018. This Court in the said Company Petition held that while the case was pending before it in company proceedings for appointment of Liquidator, the NCLT could not have appointed Insolvency Resolution Profession (for short, 'IRP') and stayed the order of NCLT which was challenged by the Employees Union of JMEL before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 12/12/2018 set aside the ord