# In the matter of Ashok Mahindru & Anr. Vs. Vivek Parti, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1324 of 2022

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-11-29. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00062. The appeal was filed against an order dated 09.09.2022 by the Adjudicating Authority…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 29 Nov 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00062
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/ashok-mahindru-anr-vs-vivek-parti-company-appeal-dc480d1d

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed against an order dated 09.09.2022 by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Court IV, which rejected I.A. No. 4173/ND/2022 filed by the Applicants/Appellants. The proceedings were initiated under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Corporate Debtor, ‘Advance Home and Personal Care Ltd.’. An application was filed by the IRP under Section 19 sub-section (2) on 04.12.2019 against the Appellants, who were Suspended Directors of the Corporate Debtor. Another application was filed by the Resolution Professional on 23.07.2020. Proceedings under Section 95 were initiated against the Appellants as a Personal Guarantor for ‘Advance Surfactants India Ltd.’ by order dated 06.12.2021 and 07.12.2021.

…

## Facts

Ashok Mahindru & Anr. filed an appeal against an order by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), New Delhi, which rejected their application (I.A. No. 4173/ND/2022). The initial proceedings were initiated under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code) against ‘Advance Home and Personal Care Ltd.’. Subsequently, the IRP filed an application under Section 19(2) against the Appellants, who were suspended directors. The Resolution Professional also filed an application. The Appellants were also facing proceedings under Section 95 as personal guarantors for ‘Advance Surfactants India Ltd.’. They sought a stay of proceedings under Section 19(2) and Sections 66 and 67, arguing that the interim moratorium triggered under Section 95 should halt these

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the Appellants' application for a stay of …

**Ratio:** The ratio is that the interim moratorium under Section 96(1)(b) of the I&B Code does

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that Section 96(1)(b) should be read in conjunction with Section

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of Section 96(1)(b) is narrow, focusing on the specific debt

…

**Application:** In this case, the Appellants sought a stay of proceedings under Section 19(2)

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…
- **Appellants:** Ashok Mah…
- **Respondents:** Advance Home and…; Vivek P…

## Timeline

- **2022-11-29 — Hearing…**: Heard learned counsel for the Appellants as…
- **2022-09-09 — Order by Adjudicating…**: Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi,…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 — Application for initiation of corporate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-9)

---

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/nclat-new-delhi/ashok-mahindru-anr-vs-vivek-parti-company-appeal-dc480d1d