Skip to main content

One Judicial Bench cannot act as an appellate authority and stay an order passed by a coordinate Bench

IN Mr. Abhijit Guhathakurta, Monitoring Agency of the Corporate Debtor vs Royale Partners Investment Fund Ltd., appeal was filed before the NCLAT against the order of a newly constituted bench of the Mumbai NCLT staying the proceedings of a matter which  has been heard at length and reserved for ‘Orders’ by an Erstwhile Bench / Co-ordinate Bench of ‘NCLT’, Mumbai. 

The NCLAT observed that erstwhile bench of ‘NCLT’, Mumbai on 30.01.2020 in MA No. 249/2020 in C.P.(IB)-1832(MB)/2017 after hearing had ‘reserved the orders’. Earlier, when MA No.249/2020 came up for hearing before the erstwhile Bench, the Respondent was directed to file ‘Reply’ in next two days’ time i.e. by 29.1.2020 and it was categorically stated that ‘the matter would be heard on 30.01.2020. Thereafter only the notification dated 29.01.2020 was issued by the President of ‘NCLT’ reconstituting the Benches at ‘NCLT’ Mumbai w.e.f. 03.02.2020. The impugned order dated 12.02.2020 was passed by the newly constituted bench of the Adjudicating Authority (Reconstituted ‘National Company Law Tribunal’, Bench No. II, Mumbai) in MA No. 515/2020 in C.P. (IB)- 1832(MB)/2017, against which the appeal was filed.

The NCLAT held that it is to be remembered the principle of “qundo aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud” is that an ‘Authority is not to be permitted to evade a Law by shift or contrivance’.

In the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Punjab and Another Vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. and Another, it is observed as follows:-

“339. Judicial discipline envisages that a coordinate Bench follow the decision of an earlier coordinate Bench. If a coordinate Bench does not agree with the principles of law enunciated by another Bench, the matter may be referred to only to a larger Bench. (See Pradip Chandra Parija Vs. Pramod Chandra Patnaik (2002)1 SCC 1 at paras 6 and 7; following in Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2002) 7 SCC 273 at para 2) But no decision can be arrived at contrary to are inconsistent with the law laid down by the coordinate Bench. Kalyani Stores AIR 1966 SC 1686 and K.K. Narula AIR 1967 SC 1368 both have been rendered by the Constitution Benches. The said decisions, therefore, cannot be thrown out for any purpose whatsoever; more so when both of them if applied collectively lead to a contrary decision proposed by the majority.”

The NCLAT further observed that it is not out of place for this Tribunal to make a pertinent mention that ‘Probity’, ‘Judicial Decorum’, ‘Propriety’ and ‘Comity of Judicial Discipline’ require that a coordinate Bench cannot stay an order which was reserved by another coordinate Bench of the same ‘Tribunal’. In fact, the erstwhile Bench(‘NCLT’, Mumbai) which reserved orders in MA No. 249 of 2020 on 30.01.2020. On 30.01.2020 till it pronounces the order is seized of the matter and retains dominion over the said MA No. 249/2020 and when MA No. 515/2020 came up for hearing before the newly re-constituted Bench (Court No. II) of Mumbai in which an order of stay was granted on 12.02.2020 in respect of the pronouncement of orders in MA No. 249/2020 by the erstwhile Bench, the said order bristles with legal infirmity because of the fact that the newly re- constituted Bench of ‘NCLT’ Mumbai, Court No. II cannot make an inroad in respect of a matter viz. MA No. 249/2020 wherein the ‘orders were reserved’ on 30.01.2020 by the erstwhile Bench. In short, the passing an order of stay of all proceedings in MA No. 249/2020 until the next date of hearing (28.02.2020) in MA No. 515/2020 by the newly re-constituted Bench, ‘NCLT’ Mumbai, Court No. II, on 12.02.2020 is perse an illegal, nullity and non-est one, in the eye of Law, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal, because of the reason that the newly re-constituted Bench cannot sit in judgement as an ‘Appellate Authority’ in respect of a subject matter, in which an order was reserved by the erstwhile Bench.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more