States High court

Bombay High Court provides clarity on the conditions for stay under Section 238 of IBC

The Bombay High Court has recently provided clarity on the conditions for stay under Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and its impact on applications filed under the Arbitration-Conciliation Act (A&C Act). Mere filing of an application under section 7(1) to the Judges does not automatically bar the need to satisfy the officer prescribed in sections 7(4) and 7(5)(a).

This case Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and M/s J. Was connected with the dispute between Poonamchand & Sons. Sunflag had filed an application under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act seeking appointment of an arbitrator. However, M/s. J. Poonamchand & Sons had already approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and filed a petition under Section 9 of the IBC against Sunflag, arguing that Section 11(6) of the A&C Act Will not apply due to stoppage under s.

After examining the relevant provisions of both the Acts, the High Court clarified that there is no inconsistency between the A&C Act and the IBC. The court noted that Section 238 of the IBC comes into force only when the Adjudicating Authority passes an order under Section 7(5) of the Code. Unless such an order is passed, an application under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act cannot be treated as non-maintainable.

The court emphasized that the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority as per Section 7(4) and 7(5)(a) of the IBC, is vital in giving effect to the ban under Section 238 of the IBC. Further, the court highlighted that Section 7(5)(b) of the IBC permits the Adjudicating Authority to reject an application if it finds that there has been no default. Therefore, filing of an application under section 7(1) of IBC does not bar proceedings under other laws unless the requirements prescribed by section 7(4) read with section 7(5)(a) of IBC are satisfied is not recorded. And the application is approved.

Based on these considerations, the Bombay High Court concluded that an application under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act can be entertained unless the adjudicating authority determines the existence of a default. The court awarded in favor of Sunflag appointing an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.

Ashish Sinha

-Ashish Kumar Sinha -Editor Legally Speaking -Ram Nath Goenka awardee - 14 Years of Experience in Media - Covering Courts Since 2008

Recent Posts

Pending CAG Reports With CM Atishi Matter: Delhi HC To Hear BJP’s Vijendra Gupta’s Plea On Dec 24

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday will hear a fresh plea filed by Leader of…

2 hours ago

SC Flags Doctor Shortage, Orders Special NEET Counselling

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to hold a special…

3 hours ago

Delhi HC Turns Down Anticipatory Bail Plea Of Former IAS Puja Khedkar

The Delhi High Court on Monday rejected the anticipatory bail plea of former IAS officer…

4 hours ago

KJS Cement Case: SC Refuses To Set Aside Second FIR Against Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia

The Supreme Court of India recently declined to intervene in a case involving Pawan Kumar…

7 hours ago

Non-Compliance In 2021 Defamation Case: Former Diplomat Lakshmi Puri Moves Delhi HC Against TMC leader Saket Gokhale

Former Diplomat Lakshmi Puri on Monday has approached the Delhi High Court in relation to…

7 hours ago

Vandalism At Allu Arjun’s House: Hyderabad Court Grants Bail To 6 Accused

Six individuals, accused of vandalizing actor Allu Arjun's residence in Hyderabad's Jubilee Hills, has granted…

8 hours ago