# In the matter of Anurodh Mittal vs. Rehat Trading Company and Anr.

> HC judgment dated 2024-05-21. Citation: TCN-2024-HC-00089. The applicant, Anurodh Mittal, filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 21 May 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-HC-00089
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/anurodh-mittal-vs-rehat-trading-company-and-anr-dc34b6e5

## Summary

### Background

The applicant, Anurodh Mittal, filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the condition to deposit Rs. 13,73,890 imposed by the appellate court as a condition for suspension of sentence. Mittal was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to jail with a compensation amount. He filed an appeal along with an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. The applicant argued that due to the initiation of insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), specifically Section 96, the debt cannot be recovered, and the condition to deposit the amount is contrary to the IBC.

## Facts

Anurodh Mittal was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to imprisonment and compensation. He appealed the conviction and sought suspension of the sentence. The appellate court imposed a condition to deposit Rs. 13,73,890 for the suspension of the sentence. Mittal argued that he initiated insolvency proceedings under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as a guarantor for M/s Shree Geeta Textiles Private Limited, which defaulted on debts. He contended that Section 96 of the IBC provides for an interim moratorium, preventing debt recovery. The judgment of conviction was dated 13.03.2024. The impugned order imposing the deposit was dated 16/04/2024. The company petition under IBC was filed in 2022.

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the condition to deposit Rs. 13,73,890 for suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC is …

**Ratio:** The scope and nature of proceedings under the NI Act and the IBC are different, and

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that Section 138 of the NI Act is penal in character, aiming to

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted Section 96 of the IBC, which provides for an interim

…

**Application:** The court applied the ratio to the facts by holding that the condition to

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** G.S. Ahlu…
- **Appellants:** Anurodh M…
- **Respondents:** Shree Geeta…; State of Madhya…

## Timeline

- **2024-03-13 — Judgment of Co…**: J.M.F.C., Burhanpur passed a judgment convicting the applicant under Section 138 of the…
- **2022-10-14 — Effective Date of…**: Interim moratorium starts from the date of filing qua personal insolvency w.e.f.…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 94 — Application by debtor to initiate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-94)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/anurodh-mittal-vs-rehat-trading-company-and-anr-dc34b6e5