ORDER :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

A. No. 6563 of 2019

1. This application has been filed by the Applicant/Defendant to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit has been filed when the Adjudicating Authority granted moratorium period on the Applicant's company. It is further stated that the suit has been filed on 28.11.2017. It is also stated that the Company Petition filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Adjudicating Authority) and a Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was declared by the Adjudicating Authority Prohibiting/Barring institution of the suits against the Defendant/Respondent. On 28.07.2017 in terms of order dated 26.07.2017, public announcement was made in respect of initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Applicant. Further announcement called for claims from all the creditors of the applicant including the plaintiff. The Plaintiff has not filed any claim whereas they filed the present suit on 28.11.2017. The suit was numbered on 18.12.2017. Notice was ordered on 20.12.2017. The respondent/Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money for supply of goods/services. The alleged amount is an operational Debit and the Respondent/Plaintiff is an Operational Creditor as defined under Section 5(20) and 5(21) of the IBC. It is further stated that the Plaintiff being the Operational Creditor in terms of the public announcement the Respondent/Plaintiff instead of filing its claim before the Resolution professional under the IBC, instead chose to file the present suit which had specifically been barred under the application of the law i.e., Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The present suit has been filed after the announcement of CIRP, during the declaration/subsistence of the moratorium period and after making of the public announcement. Hence, the suit is barred by the law and the same is liable to be dismissed.

2. It is the contention of the respondent/Plaintiff that the suit is filed to pay the defendant a sum of Rs. 2,96,19,926/- being the amount due with further interest and cost and for other orders. In the above suit, the applicant was represented by counsel as early as 20.06.2018 and on the same day the commercial jurisdiction of the suit was determined. Thereafter, the applicant took out an application No. 5090 of 2019 for amending the cause title with regard to the Defendant as Tata Steel BSL (Formerly known as Bhushan Steel Limited). It is the contention of the Respondent/Plaintiff that as per Section 14(4) of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016(IBC) the moratorium prohibiting the institution of suit against the Defendant comes to an end with the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process and in the instant case it has been completed on 15.05.2018. After approval of the resolution plan, the moratorium order passed under Section 14 shall cease to have effect. Therefore, with the approval of the insolvency resolution process on 15.05.2018, the moratorium automatically comes to an end and there is no restriction in adjudicating the suit further.

3. It is the further contention that that the purpose of imposing moratorium pending resolution process only to ensure that multiple proceedings are not taken simultaneously to help obviate the possibility of potentially conflicting outcomes of related proceedings and to ensure that the resolution process is a collective one and also to facilitate orderly completion of the process. The moratorium is only to ensure a stand-still period during which creditors cannot resort to individual enforcement action which could frustrate the insolvency resolution process. Hence, it is the contention that once the period of moratorium comes to an end, adjudication of other legal proceedings can be proceeded. Only adjudication during the moratorium period can be questioned. It is his further contention that o