High CourtsSingle Bench(2022) 01 OHC CK 0050

Sandeep Jajodia vs IDBI Bank Ltd. And Others

Orissa High Court · Decided on 10 January 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arindam Sinha, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 49 Of 2022

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 347 words

Arindam Sinha, J

1.

Mr. Banerjee, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, inter alia, application was filed under section 95 in Insolvency

and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against his client seeking commencement of insolvency proceeding, on him being guarantor to a corporate person, against

whom insolvency proceeding had already commenced. He refers to notification dated 1st June, 2016. Entry 10 in the notification is constitution of

National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai having jurisdiction over, inter alia, state of Chhattisgarh. Subsequently, by notification dated 12th

July, 2018 NCLT, Cuttack was constituted, having jurisdiction over, inter alia, state of Chhattisgarh. There was corresponding deletion of state of

Chhattisgarh in said earlier notification.

2.

He submits, the insolvency proceeding commenced against the corporate person having registered office in State of Chhattisgarh, was instituted in

NCLT, Mumbai. By order dated 10th August, 2021, NCLT, Mumbai transferred the insolvency proceeding to NCLT, Cuttack. It is therefore that the

insolvency proceeding against his client was initiated in NCLT, Cuttack because section 60 requires the proceeding, initiated against his client, to be

lodged or initiated where the proceeding against the corporate person is pending. He submits, impugned order dated 22nd December, 2021, giving

direction upon the resolution professional to exercise powers provided in section 99, in relation to his client, could not have been made by the Bench.

3.

He submits, said notification dated 12th July, 2018 did not provide for transfer, unlike provision made, inter alia, by Recovery of Debts Due to Banks

and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, whereunder bank suits stood transferred to the tribunal. NCLT, Mumbai could not have transferred the case

against the corporate person. Without prejudice to above contention he submits further, the proceeding initiated against his client is also barred by

limitation.

4.

Issue notice along with copy of this order on opposite parties. Petitioner will put in requisites.

5.

List on 24th January, 2022. Mr. Banerjee prays for stay of proceeding before NCLT, Cuttack Bench. Petitioner is at liberty to produce this order

before the Cuttack Bench and pray for adjournment.

.................................................