Barun Mitra JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, J. (Chairperson)
1. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging order dated 01.12.2022 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-IV, by which an Application under Section 95 sub-section (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") filed by State bank of India (Respondent herein), the Adjudicating Authority has declared commencement of moratorium under Section 96(1)(a) of the Code and has appointed an Insolvency Resolution Professional ("IRP") as Resolution Professional ("RP"). The Appellant, a personal guarantor of Corporate Debtor, M/s - Uttam Galva Metallics Limited aggrieved by the said order, filed this Appeal.
2. We have heard Shri Gaurav Mitra, learned Counsel for the Appellant and shri Harshit Khare, learned Counsel appearing for State Bank of India ("SBI").
3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Registered Office of the Corporate Debtor M/s. Uttam Galva Metallics Limited is situated in State of Haryana, hence, the Application under Section 95(1) filed by the SBI before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench was not maintainable and lacks territorial jurisdiction. It is submitted that earlier Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") against the associate Company of Corporate Debtor - Uttam Value Steels Limited under Section 7 was filed before the Mumbai Bench and during the pendency of the said petition, the SBI has filed another petition under Section 7 against the Corporate Debtor - Uttam Galva Metallics Limited being Company Petition (I.B.) No. 18 of 2018 before the Chandigarh Bench, which was transferred to the Mumbai Bench, where both the petitions were heard and Resolution Plan was approved by order dated 06.05.2020 and the Company Petition pending in the Mumbai Bench has come to an end. It is submitted that there is no reason or occasion to file Application under Section 95 before the Mumbai Bench and the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is completely without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. The Mumbai bench ought to have dismissed the Company Petition instead of usurping the territorial jurisdiction in entertaining the Application. It is sub........