Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.93 OF 2022
NARINDER GARG & OTHERS Petitioners
Versus
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. & OTHERS Respondents
WITH
W.P. (C) NO.300 OF 2020
O R D E R
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.93 OF 2022
The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:
“a) Issue Writ of mandamus, Order or Direction or any other
appropriate writ, quashing the Criminal Complaints mentioned in para
2.46 of the Writ Petition filed against the Petitioner
Company/Corporate Debtors and its Directors under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pending before concerned the
Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate
st
of 1 Class in view of the order dated 18.3.2020 passed by the National
Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh in C.A. No.610 of 2019 in CP (IB)
No.119/Chd/CHD/2018 by which the Resolution Plan was approved by
the CoC under Section 30(4) of the Code and as the Respondent
Complainants has accepted the approved Resolution Plan; or in the
alternative
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
Date: 2022.04.01
16:01:33 IST
Reason:
b) Issue Writ of mandamus, Order or Direction or any other
appropriate writ, quashing the Criminal Complaint mentioned in para
2.46 of the Writ Petition which were initiated after the order of
moratorium dated 13.11.2018 passed by the National Company law
Tribunal, Chandigarh in CP (IB) No.119/Chd/Chd/2018, as it cannot be
proceeded even if the old management and its Director takes over the
Corporate Debtor in view of the findings rendered in the Judgment of
this Hon’ble Court in Civil Appeal No.10355 of 2018.”
The case of the petitioners was before the Bench which was considering
the matter in P. Mohanraj & other connected matters. However, the case was
de-tagged pursuant to order dated 02.02.2021.
In P. Mohanraj & Others v. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited, (2021) 6
SCC 258, a Bench of three-Judges of this Court considered the matter whether a
corporate entity in respect of which moratorium had become effective could be
proceeded against in terms of Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (“the Act” for short).
A subsidiary issue was also about the liability of natural persons like a
Director of the Company. In paragraph 77 of its judgment, this Court observed
that the moratorium provisions contained in Section 14 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would apply only to the corporate debtor and that the
natural persons mentioned in Section 141 of the Act would continue to be
statutorily liable under the provisions of the Act.
It is submitted by Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Advocate
that the resolution plan having been accepted in which the dues of the original
complainant also figure, the effect of such acceptance would be to obliterate any
pending trial under Sections 138 and 141 of the Act.
The decision rendered in P. Mohanraj is quite clear on the point and, as
such, no interference in this petition is called for.
This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.300 OF 2020
In view of the order passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.93 of 2022, this
writ petition is also dismissed.
…………………………………………….J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
…………………………………………….J.
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)
…………………………………………….J.
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
New Delhi;
March 28, 2022.