HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLAHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Siti Networks Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Rajiv Suri – Respondent
Key Points: - The High Court held that monies deposited by a corporate debtor in court as security prior to CIRP do not cease to be the asset of the corporate debtor, even though they are in the possession of the court (!) (!) . - The court clarified that ownership and possession are distinct interests, and the deposit serves as security for a potential dismissal of the appeal, not a transfer of title to the judgment creditor (!) (!) . - The moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC prohibits enforcement actions against the corporate debtor, meaning the judgment creditor's rights are subject to the CIRP resolution plan or liquidation waterfall (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court's order allowing the revocation of the ICICI Bank guarantee in the same case serves as a binding precedent for the High Court to release the cash deposit as well (!) (!) . - The court rejected the argument based on Chowthmull and Rajendra Bansal, noting that the IBC's comprehensive framework overrides older insolvency principles regarding deposited funds (!) (!) . - The decision aligns with the principle that the IBC is a beneficial legislation aimed at reviving the corporate debtor rather than acting as a mere recovery mechanism for individual creditors (!) (!) . - The judgment permits the withdrawal of the appeal and the release of the deposited amount along with accrued earnings within two weeks (!) (!) . - The judgment affirms that a decree-holder is considered a "creditor" under the IBC, and their claims are subject to the collective distribution principles of the code (!) (!) . - The court distinguished the instant case from Axis Bank vs. SBS Organics, noting that while pre-deposits in SARFAESI appeals are not security interests, deposits made to secure execution of decrees during CIRP are assets of the debtor (!) (!) . - The release of funds is subject to the procedural rules of the court registry and does not prejudice the substantive rights of the judgment creditor under the IBC (!) .
2024:BHC-OS:18434 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION (LODG.) NO. 31055 OF 2024 IN APPEAL NO. 597 OF 2016 IN SUIT NO. 2295 OF 2002 Digitally signed by SHRADDHA SHRADDHA KAMLESH Siti Networks Ltd. ]
KAMLESH TALEKAR TALEKAR Date: (formerly known as Siticable Network Ltd.) ]
2024.11.13
18:27:59 +0530 through Resolution Professional Rohit ]
Ramesh Mehra ]… Applicant In the matter between :
Siti Networks Ltd. ]
(formerly known as Siticable Network Ltd.) ]...Appellant through Resolution Professional Rohit ] (Orig.
Ramesh Mehra Defendant)
Versus Rajiv Suri, Adult, Indian Inhabitant ] carrying on his business in the name ]
and style of M/s. Ambika Chitra as a ]…Respondent Proprietor thereof having his office at 15, ](Orig. Plaintiff )
Golf Links, Khar, Mumbai – 400 052.
Mr. Saurabh Bachhawat a/w. Mitesh Shah, Nishant Sogani, Rohan Gajaria, Ishaan Wakhloo, for Applicant.
Mr. Ajit Anekar a/w. Mr. Siddhant Sawhrey i/b Auris Legal, for Respondent.
CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.
Reserved on : October 18, 2024 Judgement : ( P er, Somasekhar Sundaresan J. )
1. This is an Application filed by the Appellant not only seeking to w
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.