KAPOLE ADVERTISING AGENCY Vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the original borrowers and they have approached this Court challenging two orders dtd. 9/1/2026 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (DRT), whereby Interim Application Nos.2524 of 2025 and 2526 of 2025 filed by them in pending Securitisation Application No.411 of 2025, have been rejected. It is the case of the petitioners that the DRT failed to appreciate the effect of pendency of a petition filed under Sec. 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (NCLT) and consequently, the existence of interim moratorium under Sec. 96 of the IBC. It is claimed that the applications were rejected by the impugned orders on irrelevant considerations.

(2.) In this petition, the petitioners also moved an interim application seeking urgent interim relief, in the light of the fact that respondent No.1 bank (secured creditor) had already proceeded under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act), as a consequence of which auction of the secured assets was conducted and sale certificate was issued in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3. On 14/1/2026, this Court took into account the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as well as respondent No.1 bank, in the backdrop of the provisions of IBC and National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (NCLT Rules) and judgement of this Court in the case of Bank of Baroda vs. Union of India and another (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3964). It was found that even if the interim moratorium could not have been triggered by mere filing of the petition on 9/7/2025 before the NCLT under Sec. 95 of the IBC, the documents on record demonstrated that the petition was indeed registered on 4/11/2025. On this basis, this Court found a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners regarding triggering of moratorium at least from 4/11/2025 and hence, limited interim relief of status quo was granted as on the said date.

(3.) But, at the same time, this Court was of the opinion that the Registrar of NCLT ought to submit a report to this Court with regard to the manner in which the aforesaid petition filed before the NCLT on 9/7/2025 had been processed, to demonstrate as to whether it was in line with the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid judgement in the case of Bank of Baroda vs. Union of India and another (supra).