21/03/2018

Whether the amount of rent due to the Land Lord (Operational Creditor) has prejudicially affected on account of the moratorium imposed under Section 14(1)(d) – JAS Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Eolane Electronics Bangalore Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that from the regulation 31 of CIRP Regulations, 2016, it is clear that the amounts due to the person whose rights are prejudicially affected on account of the moratorium imposed under Section 14(1)(d), such amount to be included in the insolvency resolution process costs. So far as Appellant is concerned, the rent has not been paid by the Corporate Debtor since 1st January, 2017 that is much prior to order of moratorium. Learned counsel for the Resolution Professional (Respondent) rightly pointed out that the rent amount due to the Appellant was not prejudicially affected on account of the moratorium imposed under Section 14(1)(d). In act it has not been paid since prior to the order of moratorium i.e. since 1st January, 2017. The order of moratorium was passed subsequently on 31st August, 2017, therefore, the Appellant cannot claim that its right has been affected prejudicially on account of moratorium imposed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Whether the amount of rent due to the Land Lord (Operational Creditor) has prejudicially affected on account of the moratorium imposed under Section 14(1)(d) – JAS Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Eolane Electronics Bangalore Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top