Madras High Court
P.Naveen Chakravarthy vs Punjab National Bank on 1 February, 2021
W.P.No.27780 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.27780 of 2019
P.Naveen Chakravarthy
Suspended Board of Directors of
M.K.Cables & Conductors (P) Ltd.,
(Under Corporation Insolvency Resolution Process),
Plot No.D16(N), 1st SIPCOT Industrial Complex,
Gummidipoondi,
Chennai-601 201. .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.Punjab National Bank,
rep. by its Authorized Officer,
Asset Recovery Management Branch,
PNB Towers, Mezzanine Floor,
No.46-49, Royapettah High Road,
Chennai – 600 014.
2.Drill Jig Bushing Co. (Madras) Pvt. Ltd.,
No.44, Sidco Ambattur,
Chennai – 600 098.
__________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27780 of 2019
3.R.Sankaran,
(Interim Resolution Professional of
M/s.M.K.Cables & Conductors Pvt. Ltd.)
J-3, Rajendra Prasand 1st street,
West Mambalam,
Chennai – 600 033.
4.Ramakrishnan Sadasivan
(Proposed Resolution Professional of
M/s.M.K.Cables & Conductors Pvt. Ltd.)
Old No.22, New No.28, Menod street,
Purasawalkam,
Chennai – 600 007. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of
impugned order dated 21.08.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in R.A. (S.A) No.7/2019 and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian
Senior Counsel
for
M/s.Genicon and Associates
For Respondents : Mr.M.L.Ganesh
for respondent No.1
Mr.K.V.Babu
for respondent No.2
Mr.T.Ravichandran
for respondent No.4
__________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27780 of 2019
No appearance
for respondent No.3
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
At the highest, if the writ petition succeeds it may only be a
pyrrhic victory and there may not be much cheer for the writ petitioner
at the end of the day.
2. The essential facts are undisputed. The petitioner was a
shareholder and director in a company. The respondent bank accorded
credit facilities to such company which were secured, inter alia, by a
mortgage or the like of an immovable property against which the bank
proceeded under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002. Upon the
bank seeking to auction the property in favour of the respondent
auction purchaser, the debtor company challenged the transaction by
way of proceedings under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. On grounds
that are not relevant for the present context, the relevant Debts
Recovery Tribunal annulled the transaction. The concerned bank
carried an appeal to the appropriate Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27780 of 2019
3. During the pendency of the proceedings before the DRAT, an
operational creditor of the debtor company invoked the provisions of
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and brought an action
before the National Company Law Tribunal in such regard. In due
course, a declaration of moratorium under Section 13 of the Code of
2016 came to be made on July 30, 2019 upon admission of the
application of the operational creditor.
4. In terms of Section 14 of the Code of 2016, a moratorium fell
into place. The combined effect of Section 238 of the Code of 2016
read with Section 231 thereof and Section 14 makes such a
moratorium as watertight as possible. As a consequence, no
proceedings for the recovery of any dues against the corporate debtor
or recovery of its assets or the like could be proceeded with before any
forum whether by way of a suit or by way of any other proceedings.
The issue that arises is whether the bank's appeal before the DRAT fell
within the dragnet of the moratorium under Section 14 of the Code of
2016.
5. However, before such issue is addressed, a question of
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27780 of 2019
propriety has to be attended to since the bank questions the very
maintainability of the present proceedings by referring to a Supreme
Court judgment reported at (2018) 1 SCC 407 (Innoventive Industries
Limited v. ICICI Bank). The bank claims that by virtue of such dictum,
proceedings cannot be pursued by or at the behest of a corporate
debtor while a moratorium is in place and the erstwhile directors of the
corporate debtor lose their right to espouse the cause of the company.
Notwithstanding the judgment, it does not appear that the right of an
erstwhile director as director or the right of a shareholder of a
corporate debtor who continues to be a shareholder is jeopardized to
the extent that an erstwhile director or a shareholder of a corporate
debtor cannot espouse his cause qua the company by seeking to right
a perceived wrong. There is no doubt that the Writ Court will be
extremely circumspect in entertaining a plea by a director or
shareholder of a corporate debtor, but the petition will be maintainable
if brought against a statutory authority.
6. Indeed, what the writ petitioner suggests in the present case
is that the DRAT order impugned herein dated August 21, 2019 is
wholly without jurisdiction and non-est as it is contrary to law. Though
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27780 of 2019
the bank seeks to indicate the description of the writ petitioner in the
cause-title, the writ petitioner relies on the body of the petition to
show that he has also instituted the writ petition in his capacity as a
shareholder of the corporate debtor and as such shareholder of the
company, he is entitled to bring it to the notice of a constitutional
Court that a quasi-judicial tribunal had committed a grievous error in
transgressing its authority and passing an order in breach of the
statutory command as contained in Section 14 of the Code of 2016.
Thus, the initial ground urged by the bank is negatived. A writ
petition, challenging an order on the ground of jurisdiction may be
carried by a shareholder prejudiced by the same insofar as the order is
directed against the concerned company and the shareholder is
aggrieved as he has an interest in the company. Such an action is not
precluded by anything contained in the Code of 2016 and the doors of
the constitutional Court cannot be shut out to a shareholder, if he
perceives something remiss and if appropriate action in such regard is
not taken by the Resolution Professional or any other entitled to
espouse the cause of the corporate debtor. The derivative right that
inheres in a shareholder qua the company will permit such course of
action.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27780 of 2019
7. The bank seeks to assert that the proceedings before the
DRAT could not be seen to be a suit or continuation of any suit and
even goes to the extent of suggesting that a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution may not lie against an order passed by a DRAT,
though a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution may be
brought. It is too late in the day to suggest that a writ petition against
a quasi-judicial authority will not lie under Article 226 of the
Constitution and the grievance has to be carried only by way of a
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is the quality of the
grievance that may decide whether a party invokes Article 226 of the
Constitution or Article 227 thereof against a quasi-judicial body. A
quasi-judicial body, particularly a statutory body which is not a Court
in the sovereign system of Courts but may be a tribunal, will be
amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Such a body has to be regarded as
a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, in any
event, several provisions in comparable statutes, like Section 18 of the
Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993,
specifically recognise the authority of a constitutional Court in respect
of the remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27780 of 2019
8. There is no doubt that simultaneously with the order of
admission of the operational creditor's petition before the NCLT, the
moratorium under Section 14 of the Code of 2016 came to be in place.
By virtue of such moratorium, particularly in view of clauses (a) and
(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Code of 2016, the action or
proceedings before the DRAT could not have been continued. The
embargo under Section 14 of the Code of 2016 was expressly brought
to the notice of the DRAT, but it appears to have bludgeoned its way
through nonetheless. In so doing, the DRAT acted completely without
jurisdiction as there can be no greater bar than a statutory prohibition
to check any adjudicating authority in carrying on its adjudicatory or
quasi-judicial functioning.
9. The bank has also referred to the operational creditor in the
present case being a "friendly” creditor of the corporate debtor who
happened to arrive at the right place at the right time to apparently
bail the corporate debtor out of the miseries that lay in store for the
corporate debtor in the appeal before the DRAT. The bank suggests
that the concerned property that the corporate debtor had specifically
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27780 of 2019
agreed to make over possession of, could not be robbed from the bank
by a side-wind or by resorting to collusive proceedings under the Code
of 2016. The bank also points out that it is the only secured creditor
of corporate debtor, which has now gone into liquidation at the bank's
suggestion. The Resolution Professional (RP) confirms such position.
It is also submitted by the RP that at the behest of the bank the
concerned immovable property was kept out of the assets of the
company now in liquidation and there is no embargo on the bank
otherwise proceeding against such asset.
10. For whatever it is worth, notwithstanding the practical effect
of this order being close to nothing, once it is brought to the notice of
a constitutional Court that a quasi-judicial authority had acted in error
or excess of jurisdiction and in derogation of a statutory mandate, the
constitutional authority has per force to correct the mistake. As a
consequence, the order of the DRAT passed on August 21, 2019 and
challenged in the present writ petition is set aside and the matter
restored to the board of the relevant DRAT at the stage immediately
prior to the date when the order was passed. As the moratorium is no
longer in place since the company has gone into liquidation, the RP,
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27780 of 2019
who has metamorphosed as the liquidator of the company, will
espouse the cause of the company in liquidation before the DRAT. If,
as the liquidator reports, the relevant secured asset proceeded against
by the bank has been kept outside the purview of the liquidation
proceedings, the RP may have precious little to say before the DRAT,
for the DRAT to, in effect, pass the same order now that the embargo
no longer operates.
11. As far as the merits of the DRAT decision is concerned, the
same is not required to be gone into, particularly in this jurisdiction
and once it is noticed that the order itself was without jurisdiction.
12. In effect, though the order dated August 21, 2019 is set
aside, it will be open to the respondent bank to seek a similar order,
which the DRAT may now pass, if it so perceives and upon taking
necessary steps in accordance with law.
13. W.P.No.27780 of 2019 succeeds to the extent indicated
above. It is hoped that the matter receives the DRAT's attention at
the earliest so as not to prejudice the bank and the auction purchaser
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27780 of 2019
who has put in a sum in excess of Rs.5 crore and has waited so long to
enjoy the fruits of its substantial investment. There will be no order
as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.27314, 34511 of 2019 and
11253 of 2020 are closed.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
01.02.2021
Index : Yes
bbr
To:
The Authorized Officer,
Punjab National Bank,
Asset Recovery Management Branch,
PNB Towers, Mezzanine Floor,
No.46-49, Royapettah High Road,
Chennai – 600 014.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.27780 of 2019
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
bbr
W.P.No.27780 of 2019
01.02.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
