# In the matter of Surana Corporation Limited MA-645-2019 in MA-142-2019 in CP-550-IB-2018

> NCLT judgment dated 2019-12-27. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLT-00016. The case involves an application filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) seeking a direction…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 27 Dec 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLT-00016
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-chandigarh/surana-corporation-limited-ma-645-2019-in-ma-142-2019-in-cp-550-ib-2018-b02f172a

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an application filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) seeking a direction against the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Office of Development Commissioner, MEPZ Special Economic Zone, to comply with a previous order regarding the handover of gold from CBI custody. The gold was initially seized due to alleged violations of import regulations by Surana Corporation Limited. A criminal case was filed by CBI but later closed with directions to deliver the gold to the creditor, SBI. MEPZ then raised objections, issuing a show cause notice to the Corporate Debtor, claiming violations of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.

## Facts

In 2011, Surana Corporation Limited (Corporate Debtor) imported gold, which led the CBI to believe that import laws were violated. The CBI initiated a complaint and seized the gold. Subsequently, the CBI filed a final report citing a mistake of fact, and the CBI court closed the case, directing the CBI to deliver the gold to the creditor of the Corporate Debtor, which is SBI. CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Professional (RP) filed an application for the release of the gold to SBI, as it was part of the liquidation estate. MEPZ (R2) raised objections, issuing a show cause notice alleging violations of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, specifically citing non-compliance with time limits for filing returns, taking

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether MEPZ can claim penalties related to the gold import during the liquidation process of the …

**Ratio:** The principle is that during liquidation, creditors can make claims against the corporate

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that MEPZ must first prove that the penalty is to be paid by the

…

**Interpretation:** This means that MEPZ has the right to claim penalties, but it must follow the

…

**Application:** The court applied this principle to the facts by stating that MEPZ must first

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** B.S.V. Prakash…; S. VIJAYARA…
- **Appellants:** C. Ramasubramaniam…
- **Respondents:** Surana Corporation…; Head of Central…

## Timeline

- **2011-01-01 — Gold Imp…**: Surana Corporation…
- **2017-12-12 — CBI Court…**: CBI Court directed the CBI to deliver the…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 60(5) — Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-60)

---

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/nclt-chandigarh/surana-corporation-limited-ma-645-2019-in-ma-142-2019-in-cp-550-ib-2018-b02f172a