ICICI Bank Ltd Vs Chanchal Dua & Ors (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that amount having not been received from the corporate debtor, there was no applicability of Section 14 of the IBC and moratorium was not applicable with regard to any payment by co-applicant. Thus, direction of adjudicating authority for reversal of amount is unsustainable.
Facts- This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the NCLT which was filed by Resolution Professional (RP) under Section 19(2) read with Sections 14, 43 & 74(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. By the impugned order, adjudicating authority has allowed the application directing the appellant who was Respondent No. 3 in the application to reverse the amount of Rs. 8,92,980/- into the account of the corporate debtor. Appellant aggrieved by the said order has come up in this appeal.
Conclusion- This tribunal in the matter of ‘Suresh Chand Garg’ Vs. ‘Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.’ has laid down that individual assets of a director are not the subject matter of the CIRP and the moratorium only extends to the assets of the corporate debtor. The ratio of the above judgment clearly negates the submission of the counsel for the respondent. Present is not a case where the director who was co-applicant of the loan has paid the amount to the ICICI Bank from a different account unrelated to the corporate debtor. Thus, held that direction of the reversal issued by the adjudicating authority is neither supported by Section 14 of the IBC nor by Section 43 of the IBC.
