Tushar Sharma vs State Bank Of India on 16 June, 2023

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Tushar Sharma vs State Bank Of India on 16 June, 2023

Bench: Sushil Kukreja

                                         1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                             .
                                         Cr. MMO No. 589 of 2023





                                         Decided on: 16.06.2023
    _______________________________________________________





     Tushar Sharma                                             ....Petitioner
                                      Versus
      State Bank of India                                    ....Respondent
     _





     Coram
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
     Whether approved for reporting?1
     For the petitioner
                         r        :          Mr. Subhash Sharma and Mr.

                                             Prantap Sharma, Advocates.
     For the respondent           :          None.
     Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the proceedings being conducted in respect of complaint No. 109/2019 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the Court of learned JMFC, Court No. 3, Una, H.P.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he has filed one company petition under Section 94(1) read with other applicable provisions of the Insolvency and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2023 20:32:58 :::CIS 2

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the National .

Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh and in pursuance to the invocation of said provision of law, the same become operational, whereby, interim moratorium has actually commenced on the date of filing of the company petition. Therefore, since interim moratorium period is in force in respect of the aforesaid proceedings, as such, the same are deemed to be stayed and the present proceedings pending before the learned trial Court cannot be continued. However, the mandate of the provision of law as contained in Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has not been applied by the learned trial Court to the facts of the present case, rather, the learned trial Court is still continuing with the proceedings.

3. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly admitted that no formal application has been filed before the learned trial Court to stay the proceedings in terms of ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2023 20:32:58 :::CIS 3 Section 96 of the Code. He further submitted that the .

petitioner will file an appropriate application before the learned trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and he would be satisfied, in case the learned trial Court is directed to decide the said application in some time bound manner.

4. Therefore, r in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and without adverting to the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that on filing of the appropriate application by the petitioner before the learned trial Court within a period of two weeks from today, it shall decide the same within a period of four weeks thereafter, strictly in accordance with law.

5. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any.




                                          ( Sushil Kukreja )
    June 16, 2023                               Judge
           (raman)




                                              ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2023 20:32:58 :::CIS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court