IBC | Mere Uploading Of Application U/S 96 Cannot Be Regarded As ‘Filing’ For Interim Moratorium To Operate: Kerala High Court
Case: Jeny Thankachan v. Union of India & Ors.
Coram: Justice N. Nagaresh
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 31502 of 2023
Court Observation: “In view of the serious consequences that will follow on filing of an application under Section 96 by a debtor, on the creditors who will be disabled and disentitled from initiating or proceeding with any debt recovery legal mechanism, Section 96 should be construed strictly. Mere uploading of an application under Section 96 of the IBC 2016 cannot be taken as filing of an application. The filing of an application as contemplated under Section 96 should be defectless and devoid of any procedural lapses. Only when an application is filed without any defects and satisfying the statutory procedural requirements of filing and only when the adjudicating authority numbers the application, there can be a legal and acceptable filing of application,”.
“In the case of the petitioner, admittedly the NCLT has not treated the application as a valid application by assigning regular case number to the application. As long as the petitioner’s application is not duly numbered by the NCLT, the interim moratorium contemplated under Section 96(1)(b)(i) cannot come into operation. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to contend that the respondents cannot go ahead with the securitisation proceedings,”.
Previous Posts
Karnataka High Court Convicts 10 Persons For Barging Into Harijan Colony & Assaulting Dalits
Magistrate Can’t Entertain Protest Petition Against Own Order Taking Cognisance: Supreme Court
