Page 1 of 14

THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH

(Exercising powers of Adjudicating Authority under

the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016)

(through web-based video conferencing platform)

IA No.598/2021, 599/2021

in

CP (IB) No.114/Chd/Pb/2017

(admitted)

In the matter of:

State Bank of India .…Petitioner-Financial Creditor

Versus

SEL Manufacturing Company Limited

.…Respondent-Corporate Debtor

And in the matter of:-

IA No.598/2021

Under Section 60(5) read with

Section 32A of the IBC, 2016

SEL Manufacturing Company Limited

through its Authorises Director, Mr. Naveen Arora

…Applicant

Vs.

Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Limited

….Respondent

And in the matter of:-

IA No.599/2021

Under Section 60(5) read with

Section 32A of the IBC, 2016

SEL Manufacturing Company Limited

through its Authorises Director, Mr. Naveen Arora

…Applicant

Vs.

The Commissioner, Commissionerate of Central Excise

….Respondent

Order delivered on: 03.06.2022

Coram: HON’BLE MR. HARNAM SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. SUBRATA KUMAR DASH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Present through video-conferencing:

For the Applicant in

IA No.598/2021 and 599/2021

: 1. Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Senior Advocate

2. Mr. Arvind Gupta, Advocate

3. Mr. Vaibhav Sahni, Advocate

For the Respondent in

IA No.598/2021

: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate

IA No.598/2021, 599/2021

in

CP (IB) No.114/Chd/Pb/2017

(admitted)

Page 2 of 14

For the Respondent in

IA No.599/2021

: Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate

Per: Subrata Kumar Dash, Member (Technical)

ORDER

IA No.598/2021

This is an application filed under Section 60(5) read with Section

32A of the IBC, 2016. In the present application, SEL Manufacturing

Company Limited through its Authorises Director, Mr. Naveen Arora is

the applicant, and Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Limited is

the respondent.

2.

In the present application, the applicant prays to pass an order

setting aside the impugned demand notice dated 05.03.2021 issued by the

respondent

corporation; pass an order extinguishing the claim of the

respondent corporation as envisioned under Clause 6 of the resolution plan;

award costs of this application; and any further order, direction that this Bench

may deem fit to order.

3.

In this application, the applicant states inter alia, that subsequent to

approval of the resolution plan under Section 30 and 31 of the Code, 2016 by

this Adjudicating Authority on 10.02.2021, it has received a demand from

PSIEC pertaining to Plot No.256-57, Phase-VIII, Focal Point Ludhiana for an

amount which was payable prior to the CIRP. The applicant has stated that the

demand notice cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, firstly because the

same pertains to a period prior to the CIRP of the present applicant and in

view of the statutory provisions of the Code, 2016 under Section 31 and

Section 32A.

IA No.598/2021, 599/2021

in

CP (IB) No.114/Chd/Pb/2017

(admitted)

Page 3 of 14

3.1

It is further stated that this demand notice is also creating further

hindrance in the dismissal of this non core asset as per the resolution plan,

since as per the plan the same needs to be sold so as to repay the financial

creditors.

3.2

The applicant has also placed reliance on the decisions of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Essar Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors

Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531, in the case of Manish Kumar

Vs. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 1 and in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra

& Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (2021) 9

SCC 657

4.

The

Respondent

by

its

reply

filed

by

Diary No.01354/2 dated

12.04.2022, invited our attention to Clause 2(iii) of the allotment letter dated

01.12.1995 and further Clause 2(ii) which provides as under:-

“2(iii) The above price of the plot is subject to variation with reference to

the actual measurement of the plot and cost of acquisition of land. In

case of enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of

lan