Delhi High Court
Anil Syal vs Union Bank Of India & Ors. on 19 January, 2022
$~79
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 875/2022 & CM APPL. 2498/2022
ANIL SYAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sameer Rohtagi, Advocate with
Mr. Manohar Malik, Advocate.
Versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Santosh Kr. Rout, Advocate for
R-1.
Mr. Shubham Kulshreshtha, Advocate
for R-4.
% Date of Decision: 19th January, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (ORAL)
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the recovery
proceedings initiated under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and
Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the order dated 13th December, 2021
passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal [DRT], Delhi in OA No. 683 of 2020.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Petitioner had filed
an application under Section 94(1) read with Sections 96, 97, 99 and 100 of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
21:41:21
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC] for initiation of Personal
Insolvency Resolution Process of the Petitioner who is the Personal
Guarantor of Respondent No.2, Flywheel Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. He
states that as per the provisions of Section 96 of the IBC, the interim
moratorium commenced as soon as the application under Section 94 of the
IBC was filed by the Petitioner thereby not only staying all legal
proceedings in respect of any debt against the Petitioner but also prohibiting
the creditors from initiating any legal action or proceedings in respect of any
debt. He further states that the application was formally shared with
Respondent No.1, intimating the bank the impending moratorium that would
be activated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the provisions of IBC
have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due
to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and so the impugned order and
proceedings are liable to be set aside as they have been instituted in violation
of Section 96 of the IBC.
5. Issue notice.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on an advance
notice, states that the petitioner had already filed an application dated 14th
November, 2021 before the DRT seeking similar reliefs. He states that the
DRT be directed to decide the application filed by the Petitioner
expeditiously.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court directs the DRT to decide
the Petitioner's application dated 14th November, 2021 as expeditiously as
possible, but not later than four weeks.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
21:41:21
8. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed
of.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
JANUARY 19, 2022
AS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
21:41:21
