State Bank Of India v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors

225IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CWP No 4170 of 2018Decided on : 25.02.2019 State Bank of India —___ Petitioner Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and ors....... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MRS, JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present :.Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Parsad, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counselfor respondent, 2222 Ajay Kumar Mtttal, J. The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari/Mandamus for quashing the notice dated 16.02.2017 (Annexure P-5) issuedunder Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by respondent No.2.?DThe primary dispute in the writ petition was regarding whetherthe petitioner or the respondent-bank/department would have precedence torecover the outstanding liabilities from M/s R.P.Basmati Rice Ltd. | 3It was stated by learned counsel for the parties that anapplication under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016(for brevity 'the Code’) filed by the respondents has been admitted by theNational Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (in short'NCLT") and Moratorium under Section 14(1) of the Code has beendeclared. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as below: “In view of the above, we declare the Moratorium interms ofsub section (1) ofSection 14 ofthe Code as under: | (a) the institution of suits or continuation of pendingsuits or proceedings against the corporate debtorincluding execution of any judgment, decree or order inany Court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or otherauthority; (b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing ofby the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legalright or beneficial interest therein; (c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce anysecurity interest created by the corporate debtor inrespect of its property including any action under theSecuritization and Reconstruction of Financial Assetsand Enforcement ofSecurity Interest Act, 2002; (d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessorwhere such property is occupied by or in the possessionofthe corporate debtor. ” 4A Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of the Moratorium issued by NCLIT, the present petition has become infructuouand may be disposed of as such. 5Ordered accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE 25.02.2019sonia (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:Whether reportable: Yes/NoYes/No