Alchemist Asset Reconstrution Company Ltd. Vs. M/S. Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

A complaint by the former director with the SHO, Police Station against Resolution Professional would not be maintainable and competent as the complaint is not lodged by the IBBI. The jurisdiction would vest with Investigation Officer only when a complaint is filed by IBBI – M/s Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd Vs. M/s Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

NCLT held that if, there is any complaint against the Insolvency Professional then the IBBI is competent to constitute a disciplinary committee and have the same investigated from an Investigating Authority as per the provision of section 220 of the Code. If, after investigation IBBI finds that a criminal case has been made out against the Insolvency Resolution Professional then the IBBI has to file a complaint in respect of the offences committed by him. It is with the aforesaid object that protection to action taken by the IRP in good faith has been accorded by section 233 of the Code. There is also complete bar of trial of offences in the absence of filing of a complaint by the IBBI as is evident from a perusal of section 236(1)(2) of the code. Therefore, a complaint by the former director with the SHO, Police Station would not be maintainable and competent as the complaint is not lodged by the IBBI. The jurisdiction would vest with Investigation Officer only when a complaint is filed by IBBI.

A complaint by the former director with the SHO, Police Station against Resolution Professional would not be maintainable and competent as the complaint is not lodged by the IBBI. The jurisdiction would vest with Investigation Officer only when a complaint is filed by IBBI – M/s Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd Vs. M/s Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

The effect of Sec. 14(1)(a) is that the arbitration that has been instituted after the moratorium is non est in law – Alchemist Asset Reconstrution Company Ltd. Vs. Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.- Supreme Court

The Apex Court held that the mandate of the new Insolvency Code is that the moment an insolvency petition is admitted, the moratorium that comes into effect under Section 14(1)(a) expressly interdicts institution or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against Corporate Debtors. This being the case, we are surprised that an arbitration proceeding has been purported to be started after the imposition of the said moratorium and appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act are being entertained. Therefore, we set aside the order of the District Judge dated 06.07.2017 and further state that the effect of Section 14(1)(a) is that the arbitration that has been instituted after the aforesaid moratorium is non est in law.

The effect of Sec. 14(1)(a) is that the arbitration that has been instituted after the moratorium is non est in law – Alchemist Asset Reconstrution Company Ltd. Vs. Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.- Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top