Skip to main content

Each And All Proceedings Under Companies Act 1956 Stands Transferred To NCLT

"In case of inconsistency, new act will override older act"

In Prasanta Kumar Mitra vs India Steam Laundry (P) Ltd., appeal was filed before the divisional bench of the Calcutta High Court against order that the High court has lost jurisdiction from 15th December 2016 to entertain all proceedings under Companies Act, 1956 and the same stood transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal.

The Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf, upholding the single bench order, held as follows:
      
1) The jurisdiction of the High Court in company matters being a special jurisdiction conferred by the 1956 Act, and not being a civil jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the same can always be ousted by the amendment of the enactment that conferred the said jurisdiction. Hence, no express repealing is required and the same can be repealed by implication

2) Change of forum is not a choice of parties, but is the choice of the legislature. The parties cannot contend that they have a vested right to continue in the forum the lis was initiated. The legislature can always change the forum. Forum is a matter of procedure and change of the same does not result in change of substantive rights of parties

3) The term ‘including’ in Section 434(1)(c) of the 2013 Act is extensive and expansive and not restrictive in nature. Accordingly, Section 434(1)(c) of the 2013 Act that states “all proceedings under the Companies Act 2013 including proceedings relating to....” would include all matters, without any exception, pending before the District Courts and High Court and all such matters would have to be transferred to the NCLT.

4) The moment a new enactment comes into the statutory books, dealing with the same subject matter and specifically dealing with the same issue, and the transitional provision becomes inconsistent with the new enactment, the transitional provision has to go due to repugnancy. As held in (c) above, Section 434(1)(c) deals with all proceedings under the 1956 Act. Therefore, there is a clear inconsistency between the said provision and Section 68 of the Amendment Act, 1988. Consequentially, since the transitional provision is inconsistent with the new provision, it is impliedly repealed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more