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

Akshay Kumar Moves Bombay HC To Protect His Personality Rights

Bollywood actor Akshay Kumar has approached the Bombay High Court seeking protection of his personality…

2 months ago

Bribery Case: CBI Arrests NHIDCL Executive Director

The Central Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday arrested the Executive Director and Regional Officer of…

2 months ago

Supreme Court Issues Slew Of Directions On Green Crackers Issue

The Supreme Court on Wednesday laid down detailed interim guidelines permitting the sale and use…

2 months ago

INX Media Case: Delhi HC Relaxes Travel Restrictions On Karti Chidambaram

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday relaxed the travel restrictions placed on Congress MP Karti…

2 months ago

Delhi HC Rules Lawyers’ Offices Not Commercial Establishments; Quashes NDMC Case Against Advocate

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday clarified that the professional office of a lawyer does…

2 months ago

Delhi HC Allows Actor Rajpal Yadav To Travel To Dubai For Diwali Event

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday permitted actor Rajpal Yadav to travel to Dubai to…

2 months ago