When it comes to invoking provisions of IBC, if the law has protected the Financial Service Provider, IBC could not have been invoked – Gyanchand Mutha Vs. M/s. Aditya Birla Money Limited – NCLAT New Delhi
NCLAT refers Randhiraj Thakur Versus Jindal Saxena Financial Services Private Limited and Another [2018] ibclaw.in 79 NCLAT and Saumil A. Bhavnagri Versus Nimit Builders Private Limited and Another [2019] ibclaw.in 182 NCLAT and holds that considering the position of law, it appears to us that the Adjudicating Authority could not have initiated CIRP when the Corporate Debtor did not fall in the concerned definition of Corporate Person under IBC. Under Section 3(8) “Corporate Debtor” means a corporate person who owes a debt to any person. The Application could not have been admitted as if by way of punishment for concealing particular fact in KYC. The conduct of the Corporate Debtor may attract any other action which the Operational Creditor may take. However, when it comes to invoking provisions of IBC, if the law has protected the financial service provider, IBC could not have been invoked in the manner in which it has been done.(p17)
