JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)--An interesting issue has arisen in this matter in respect of the interpretation of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter the `Code'). The Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking recovery of Rs.1,61,47,336.44. The Plaintiff had placed an order on the Defendant for purchase of Totapari Mango pulp. As part of the said transaction, it is the case of the Plaintiff that an agreement had been entered into, supplies were made and various amounts are due towards excess payments, damages and other costs. The Defendant has filed its written statement/counter claim in which it avers that it is, in fact, entitled to recover a sum of Rs.59,51,548/- and no amount is due and payable by it to the Plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff company has since gone into insolvency and a Resolution Professional has been appointed. The question has arisen as to whether the adjudication of the counter claim would be liable to be stayed in view of Section 14 of the Code. The contention of ld. counsel for the Plaintiff is that the claim of Rs.59,51,548/- by the Defendant is in the nature of a set off and is intertwined and interlinked with the Plaintiff's suit. It is not an independent claim by the Defendant, but is to be adjudicated in the light of the claims made by the Plaintiff in the suit. He submits that since at this point the claim itself is not yet adjudicated and it is not even clear whether any amount would be recoverable by the Plaintiff, both the suit and the counter claim ought to be adjudicated together instead of the Defendant being forced to approach the Resolution Professional for recovery of its claims. He relies upon the recent order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (`NCLAT') in Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. IVRCL Limited & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 285/2018 Decided on 3rd August, 2018, as also the judgment of a ld. Single Judge of this Court in Power Grid Corporation of India v. Jyoti Structures Ltd., (2018) 246 DLT 485. Mr. Mishra, ld. counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submits that he has no objection if the suit and the counter claim are adjudicated before this Court.

3. A perusal of the counter claim shows that the Defendant's position is that no amount is recoverable from it but that it is, in fact, entitled to recover a sum of Rs.59,51,548/- due to various breaches by the Plaintiff.

4. The claim of the Plaintiff is much higher i.e. a sum of Rs.1,61,47,336.44, than what is claimed by the Defendant. The transaction between the parties would require to be adjudicated on the basis of correspondence and the agreement, which have been placed on record. This Court would have to first determine the question as to whether any amount at all is payable to the Plaintiff. Even if the counter claim is decreed fully and the claim of the Plaintiff is also allowed, the Plaintiff would, in fact, be entitled to recover and not the Defendant. The possible outcome of the suit and the counter claim is in the realm of uncertainty. The question as to the amount that would be liable to be paid by either party to the other is not something that can be predicted at this point. The entitlement of the Defendant to the amount claimed from the Plaintiff is also not concrete and settled. There is no doubt that adjudication of the plaint and counter claim are interlinked with each other.

5. A ld. Single Judge of this Court in Power Grid Corporation (supra) has held that embargo of Section 14(1)(a) of the Code would not apply in all circumstances. The observation of the Court is as under:

"14. Hence for following reasons I conclude the present proceeding would not be hit by the embargo of Section 14(1)(a) viz., (a) `proceedings' do not mean `all proceedings; (b) moratorium under section 14(1)(a) of the code is intended to prohibit debt recovery actions against the assets of corporate debtor; (c) continuation of proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitrati