Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

K. Sivalingam Resolution Professional ... vs The Competent Authority Cum Deputy ... on 9 April, 2026

        NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                           AT CHENNAI
                    (APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
                Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.6/2025
                      (IA Nos. 26, 28 & 29/2025)
In the matter of:
BIHARI LAL CHAKRAVARTI,
Resolution Professional of NCS Sugars Limited,
D-54, First floor, Defence colony,
New Delhi - 110024.                                   ... APPELLANT
                                      V
THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CUM DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
Mumbai, 3rd Floor, Old Custom House, Shahid Bhagat
Singh Marg, kalaghoda, Fort Mumbai - 400001
Also, at: 2nd Floor, DD Building, Old Custom House,
S B Road, Mumbai - 400001.                         ... RESPONDENT NO.1

CHIEF INVESTIGATION OFFICER (SIT-NSEL),
Economic Offences Wing, 3rd Floor,
New Building, Police Commissionerate,
Compound Opp Crawford Market,
Mumbai- 400 001.                      ... RESPONDENT NO.2

M/S NATIONAL SPOT EXCHANGE LIMITED
rep by its Authorized representative having office at
Malkani Chamber, 1st floor, of Nehru Road,
Vile Parle (east), Mumbai- 400 099.                   ... RESPONDENT NO.3

N. NAGESWARA RAO,
Son of Late Narasimha Murthy,
Resident of H. No. 8-2-120/86/9A, Plot No. 10,
Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034.   ... RESPONDENT NO.4

KONDREDDY VENKATA SIVA REDDY
# 1-1322, Flat No. 4-1, Sri Nagar Colony,
DS Max Apartments, NH 44, Anantapur,
Anantapuramu, Andhra Pradesh- 515 001.           ... RESPONDENT NO.5

SUB- REGISTRAR OFFICE KADIRI
4575-CF9, Court Road, Court Complex Kadiri,
Revenue Colony, kadirim
Andhra Pradesh- 515591.                          ... RESPONDENT NO.6

Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.06/2025                            Page 1 of 5
 COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF NCS SUGARS
Through Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited
(Assignee of Andhra Bank Exposure)
Having office at A- 270, 1st and 2nd Floor, Defence Colony
New Delhi- 110 024, India                            ... RESPONDENT NO.7

JAKKULA RAMA RAO
Residing at 1-7-7/1F, 203,
Kamala Nagar Secunderabad, Hyderabad- 500062.
                                                      ... RESPONDENT NO.8
Present:
For Appellant        : Mr. Kanishk Khetan, Advocate
                       For Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Hirendernath, Advocate for R3

                                         ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 09.04.2026:

Oral Judgment: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial) The Appellant in the instant company appeal has questioned the propriety of the impugned order dated 09.07.2024, as it was passed by the Ld. NCLT, Hyderabad Bench in IA (IB) No.308/2024, as preferred in CP (IB) No.299/7/HDB/2018.

2. The determination that has been made by the Ld. Tribunal, has been recorded in para. 11 and 12 of the impugned order where it held that, the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 (MPID Act, 1999), was directed to keep the proceedings on hold till the Hon'ble Apex Court decides the matter, which was pending consideration at that point of time by way of Writ Petition(C) No.995/2019.

3. Para. 11 and 12 of the impugned order is extracted hereunder: -

"11. Therefore, in the light of our discussion as above we are of the considered view that our order of 'status quo granted on 20.02.2024 as regards the alienation of properties purchased by the 5th respondent under the impugned sale by the Competent Authority under MDIP Act, is put on 'hold' till such time the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, decides the point framed in above referred Writ petition however, by observing that alienation(s) if any made by the respondents from the date of this Application till disposal of the above Writ Petition No.995/2025. The respondents shall accordingly inform the prospective purchasers in writing before making alienations if any.

12. Therefore, the present application is CLOSED giving liberty to the Applicant to seek revival of the same after the disposal of the Writ Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if occasion arises."

4. During the pendency of the company appeal it has been informed by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that, in the Writ Petition (C) No.995/2019, the question under consideration with regards to the repugnancy of Section 14 of the I & B Code, qua the attachments made under the state legislation, i.e., herein under the MPID Act, 1999, has been answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment dated 15.05.2025 and it has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Section 14 of the Code will Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.06/2025 Page 3 of 5 not be repugnant to the state legislation, for the purposes of attachment of the property under the state laws.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of repugnancy in Writ Petition (C) No.995/2019 had framed the following issues: -

"(i) whether the Secured creditors would have priority of interest over the assets attached under the Provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (PMLA) and Maharashtra Protection of Investors and Depositors Act, 1999 (MPID Act), by virtue of the Provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and RDB Act, 1993; (In view of order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the Committee)

(ii) whether the properties of the Judgment Debtors and Garnishees attached under the Provisions of MPID Act, 1999 would be available for the execution of the decrees against Judgment Debtors in view of the Provision of Moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016; (In view of the Order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the Committee)"

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the aforesaid issue has answered the same in the following manner: -

"52. In that view of the matter, it is held that the properties of the Judgment Debtors and Garnishees attached under the provisions of the MPID Act, would be available for the execution of the decrees against the Judgment Debtors by the S.C. Committee, despite the provision of Moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC."

7. In view of the above answer given by the Hon'ble Apex Court nothing much survives to be decided in the instant company appeal.

8. In view of the answer given by the Hon'ble Apex Court by the judgment of 15.05.2025, though it is already under review at the behest of the Appellant, the purpose of the instant company appeal stands frustrated because of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, the company appeal is accordingly dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial) [Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical) AR/MS/AK Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.06/2025 Page 5 of 5