Orissa High Court
Sandeep Jajodia vs Idbi Bank Ltd. And Another .... Opposite ... on 10 January, 2022
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.49 Of 2022
(Through video conferencing mode)
Sandeep Jajodia .... Petitioner
Mr. R.Banerjee, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
IDBI Bank Ltd. and another .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
Order No. 10.01.2022 01. 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.
Page 1 of 1
// 2 //
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.
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
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.
(Arindam Sinha) Judge Prasant Page 3 of 3