# In the matter of Subrata Monindranath Maity vs. The State Represented by Deputy Director, & Ors.

> HC judgment dated 2023-12-12. Citation: TCN-2023-HC-00007. The case involves Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 12 Dec 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-HC-00007
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/subrata-monindranath-maity-vs-the-state-represented-by-deputy-director-ors-f25855f2

## Summary

### Background

The case involves Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners for offences punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act. The petitioner, Subrata Monindranath Maity, is the 'occupier' of M/s. Bhatia Coke Energy Limited, appointed by NCLT as the Resolution Professional. Complaints were filed against the petitioner by the Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health-II, and cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur, for offences under Section 92 of the Factories Act in C.C.Nos.510 to 516 of 2022. The petitioner claims that the complaints suffer from material infirmity as he is not the Director but the Resolution Professional appointed under the IBC, 2016.

…

## Facts

Subrata Monindranath Maity, the petitioner, is the occupier of M/s. Bhatia Coke Energy Limited. He was appointed as the Resolution Professional by the NCLT under the IBC, 2016. The Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health-II, filed complaints against the petitioner for violations under the Factories Act. The factory was inspected on 22.01.2021, and a show cause notice was issued on 16.02.2021. The petitioner, due to hospitalization, delayed the compliance report, which was sent on 17.04.2021. The respondent obtained sanction and filed the complaint on 20.04.2021. The complaints relate to various violations of safety regulations in the factory, as detailed in C.C.Nos.510 to 516 of 2022. The petitioner argues that as a Resolution Professional, he should not be

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Resolution Professional appointed by NCLT under IBC can be deemed the 'occupier' of the …

**Ratio:** The definition of 'occupier' under Section 2(n)(i) of the Factories Act, 1948, includes

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the resolution professional, after taking charge of the company,

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of 'occupier' under the Factories Act is crucial. The court

…

**Application:** The court applied this interpretation to the facts, stating that for all

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** DR.JUSTICE…
- **Appellants:** Subrata Monindrana…
- **Respondents:** Bhatia Coke…; The State…
- **Advocates:** S. R…; A. Venkates…; +1 more

## Timeline

- **2019-12-30 — Resolution Professional…**: The petitioner, Subrata Monindranath Maity, was appointed as Resolution Professional of…
- **2021-01-22 — Factory Ins…**: The factory was…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 233 — Protection of action taken in good faith](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-233)

---

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/subrata-monindranath-maity-vs-the-state-represented-by-deputy-director-ors-f25855f2