AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
I.A. No. 3649 of 2023 :-
This is an Application filed by the Corporate Debtor making prayer for following reliefs:-
“a. Direct that the Applicant herein is entitled for immediate restoration of its Authorised Signatories in the accounts maintained by the Applicant in various banks, including the only operational account of Applicant with Yes Bank Limited as it existed prior to the Admission Order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, in light of the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, and
b. Direct for the removal of the name of the Interim Resolution Professional from the list of Authorised Signatories in the bank accounts of the Applicant.
c. Pass any other/further order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice.”
In this Appeal, against the order admitting CIRP, interim order was passed by this Tribunal on 28.07.2023 where we have directed “we further are of the view that even though we have stayed the CIRP process the appellant or CD shall not alienate its assets.”.
Learned Counsel for the Corporate Debtor has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in “Ashok Kumar Tyagi vs. UCO Bank & Anr.-IA Nos.4291, 4221, 4340 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1323 of 2022”. In the said judgment, this Tribunal has clearly held that even if the CIRP order has been stayed, the Corporate Debtor cannot be put back. In paragraphs 18 & 19, following has been held:-
“18.The difference between stay of an Order and quashing of any Order are well settled as noticed above. In event on the stay of the admission of Section 7 Application, the Corporate Debtor is allowed to function and position as was existing prior to 28.10.2022 is restored, there shall be no difference in staying an Order and quashing of an Order. What the Appellants are asking/praying is restoration of the position as was prior to admission of Section 7 Application. We can not accept such request made by the Appellant. The Admission Order of Section 7 Application has only been stayed and not quashed thus the Corporate Debtor can not be permitted to function as it was functioning prior to 28.10.2022.
19.However, in view of the stay of the Order dated 28.10.2022, the IRP can not carry on any functions since the IRP was appointed by the same order and by stay of the Order, no further action can be taken by the IRP in pursuance of the Order dated 28.10.2022. The Order dated 28.10.2022 has become inoperative in view of the Interim Order of this Tribunal dated 07.11.2022. Hence the Appellant is right in his submission that IRP can not discharge any function after the Impugned Order dated 07.11.2022.”
Learned Counsel for the Corporate Debtor submitted that the conditions which were put in Ashok Kumar Tyagi’s case be put in the present case and Corporate Debtor is ready to comply.
We are of the view that staying of the CIRP does not entitle the Corporate Debtor to put back in position which has already been held by this Appellate Tribunal in Ashok Kumar Tyagi’s case. Application filed by the Corporate Debtor cannot be allowed. Application is rejected accordingly.
I.A. No. 3595 of 2023 :-
This is an Application filed by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) praying for clarification. We have already passed an order staying the CIRP by an order passed today. We have rejected the IA filed by the Corporate Debtor praying for putting back the Corporate Debtor in position.
In view of the stay of the CIRP process, IRP is not to proceed any further in the CIRP process. However, IRP shall keep the Corporate Debtor as a going concern.
With these observations, we dispose of this Application.