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

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more