In a matter titled as Power Grid Corporation of India Vs. Jyoti Structures Limited, being OMP (COMM) 397/2016, decided on 11th December, 2017, Delhi High Court held that extending the moratorium to such proceedings would rather prevent the corporate debtor from recovering money due to it. Such a consequence would in fact be directly contrary to the object of the Code hence such an interpretation could not be given to Section 14 of IBC.
Challenge
Whether proceedings initiated under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in regard to an Arbitration Award in favour of Corporate Debtor, need to be stayed, as per Section 14 (1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) ?
Held
Delhi High Court held that the object of the I B C 2016 is to provide relief to the corporate debtor, through a period during which its assets are protected, from dissipation or diminishment, and as a corollary, during which it can strengthen its financial position. Extending the moratorium to such proceedings would rather prevent the corporate debtor from recovering money due to it. Such a consequence would in fact be directly contrary to the object of the Code hence such an interpretation could not be given to Section 14 of IBC.
The High Court further observed: