# In the matter of Rajendra Prasad Bansal Vs. Rajendra P. Bansal INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1161 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1539 OF 2012

> HC judgment dated 2023-01-04. Citation: TCN-2023-HC-00093. The case involves an interim application (IA No. 1161 of 2020) in a pending First Appeal (No. 1539…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 4 Jan 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-HC-00093
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/rajendra-prasad-bansal-vs-rajendra-p-bansal-interim-application-no1161-of-2020-i-cd547cfa

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an interim application (IA No. 1161 of 2020) in a pending First Appeal (No. 1539 of 2012) before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The applicant (Rajendra Prasad Bansal), who is the respondent in the First Appeal, seeks to withdraw monies deposited by the appellant (Reliance Communication Limited) in the Trial Court pursuant to a stay order granted by the High Court. The appellant is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The appellant contends that Section 14 of the IBC imposes a moratorium that prevents the withdrawal of the deposited amount. The respondent argues that the moratorium does not apply as the deposited amount is not an asset of the corporate debtor and that

…

## Facts

Rajendra Prasad Bansal, the respondent, was an employee of Reliance Communication Limited, the appellant. The appellant terminated the respondent's employment, leading the respondent to file Special Civil Suit No. 127/2010 in the Trial Court challenging the termination. The Trial Court passed a judgment on June 30, 2012, directing the appellant to pay certain sums to the respondent, including salary, leave encashment, and damages, along with interest. The appellant filed a First Appeal challenging the Trial Court's judgment. As a condition for stay of execution of the impugned judgment, the High Court ordered the appellant to deposit the entire decretal amount with the Trial Court, which the appellant did on December 10, 2012. Subsequently, the respondent filed Interim

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to …

**Ratio:** The NCLT's jurisdiction is limited to matters arising solely from the insolvency of the

…

**Reasoning:** The High Court reasoned that the NCLT is a statutory tribunal with circumscribed powers

…

**Interpretation:** Section 60(5) of the IBC should be interpreted narrowly, and the NCLT's

…

**Application:** The High Court applied the ratio to the facts of the case, finding that the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** K.R.SHR…; Kamal K…
- **Respondents:** Reliance Communica…; Rajendra Prasad…
- **Advocates:** Cyrus Bha…; Tushad Ka…; +4 more

## Timeline

- **2001-11-29 — Respondent Joins…**: Respondent joined appellant as an employee pursuant to an Appointment Letter dated 29th…
- **2006-10-31 — Appellant Terminates…**: Appellant unilaterally…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 14 — Moratorium](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-14)

---

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/rajendra-prasad-bansal-vs-rajendra-p-bansal-interim-application-no1161-of-2020-i-cd547cfa