Page 410 - IBC Orders us 7-CA Mukesh Mohan

Order Passed by Sec 7
Hon’ble NCLT Allahabad Bench
recovery of its debt under the SARFAESI Act and RDDBFI Act before the DRT, Allahabad, hence, such

attempt and act on the part of the Applicant Bank/Financial Creditor is wholly impermissible in law as
this would amount to FORUM SHOPPING. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a decision
of the Hon'ble Principal Bench of the NCLT in the matter of Anna urna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v/s Soril

Inra Resources Ltd. (CP No.(1B)-22(PB)/2017. in pars 27-

"We are further of the view that already proceedings or execution of the award have been

initiated An effective remedy has been availed by the applicant I'VE have not been able to
accept that a party can invoke more than on remedy in It /s inflict against the

fundamental principles of judicial administration to allow a party to avail more than one
remedies. Ordinarily only one remedy at one time could be availed as is evident from the
fundamental principles laid down in Section /0 CPC. It would promote rum shopping

which is wholly impermissible in law",

He further placed. reliance on a decision oldie Bombay High Court in Company Application ppI

No4470 of 2016 in Company Petition No.570/2016 alontwith group of matters in the matter of IDFC
Bank Ltd. v/s Ruchi Soya Indystries Ltd., wherein the Ld. Single Judge of the. le Bombay High Court
took such view by observing that if 98% of the s in value of the total dues of respondent are agreed to

oppose the mg up petition are participating in .11_1's meetings to take steps for rectification and
restructuring of the debts of respondent company then a winding up petition at the instance °fa petitioner
who claims only 1% of the total debts of the respondent company cannot be entertained and such order or

winding up in favour of the petitioner would not benefit generally the petitioner nor the creditors of the
respondent company. Thus, the Hon`ble Bombay High Court has pleased to consider the wishes of large

number of creditors who were seriously opposing the winding up of the respondent company as they had
agreed to take steps to revive the respondent company by taking corrective action plan. In view of this the
winding up petition was dismissed by the Hon' We Bombay High Court.

We gave due importance to the above stated judgment, however, with due respect to the Hon'ble
Bombay Nigh Court and Hon'ble Principal Bench, NLC.1. in the above referred judgment in our humble

opinion the above stated judgment is not of much assistance to the present Corporate Debtor Companies.
Keeping in view, the statutory provision of the Section 7 of the Code wherein pendency °fa dispute is no
Bar to a Financial Creditor when default occurred is of more than Rupees One Lakh to move the CIRP in

respect of Corporate Debtor. Further, the Horeble Supreme Court in its recent judgment in innoventive
Industries V/S ICIO. Bank & Anr. As well as the Hon'ble NCLAT its decision in the very same matter
has held the provision of the I & B Code are having overriding effect U/s 238 (Attie Code, Hence, in our

410