2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 25704
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
National Steel And Agro Industries Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act – Appellant
Versus
Sardar – Respondent
CR 410/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH th ON THE 5 OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 CIVIL REVISION No. 410 of 2022 BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL STEEL AND AGRO INDUSTRIES, COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956 THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. SAMBHUNATH PRASAD (GENERAL MANAGER HR) ON BEHALF OF MR.DUSHYANT C DAVE, THE RESOULUTION PROFESSIONAL OF THE APPELLANT, HAVING HIS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 621, TULSIANI CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)
.....APPLICANT (SHRI VASHISTHA NARAYAN DUBEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT)
AND
1. SARDAR S/O SHRI AMBARAM CASTE BALAI, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE LEBAD, TEHSIL DHAR DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. AMRITA W/O SARDAR, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE LEBAD, TEHSIL DHAR, DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS ( SHRI A.S.PARIHAR, LEARNED PANEL ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3)
SHRI AMIT RAJ, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1)
This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR
ORDER
The present civil revision filed by the applicant/defendant under section
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC) is arising out of the order dated 26.07.2022 passed by IInd Civil Judge, Junior Division, District Dhar in Regular Civil Suit No.A/102/2022 whereby the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
2. Brief facts of the case is that respondents No.1 & 2 filed a civil suit before the trial Court seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the applicant pleading that they are in possession of the property bearing survey No.236 & 236/3, situated in village Lebad, Tehsil Dhar, District Dhar (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'). They further pleaded that the applicant is interfering in their possession, occupying it illegally and pressurizing them to sell the suit property to the applicant/defendant. In the said civil suit, the defendant/applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint by pleading that the applicant is a company registered under the Companies Act and is currently undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IBC'). The National Company Law Tribunal (for short 'NCLT'), Mumbai Bench vide order dated 11.04.2022 admitted an application filed under section 7 of the IBC against the applicant and an Interim Resolution Professional (for short 'IRP') of the company was appointed by the NCLT. The IRP appointed by the NCLT is taking every effort to run the corporate debtor as a going concern as per the provisions of the IBC. The National Steel plant situated at Sejwaya village, Mhow-Neemuch Road, District Dhar is one of the major factories of the corporate debtor. The corporate debtor owns the land bearing survey no.5/1 of village Sejwaya, Tehsil Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR and District Dhar, however, the applicant does not have any connection with the said properties as alleged by the plaintiff in the suit. The same is evident from the land records submitted by the plaintiff along with the plaint in the suit. It was further pleaded that the suit is barred under section 14 of the IBC and that by and under the insolvency commencement date, the moratorium under section 14 of the IBC was declared by the NCLT against the applicant company. Section 14(1) of the IBC prohibits the institution of suits or continuation of suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor before the tribunal, therefore, the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiff is barred under the law. It was further pleaded that the jurisdiction of the civil Court in the matter is expressly barred under sections 63 & 231 of the IBC, hence prayed