Skip to main content

Difference between ‘Adjudicating Authorities’ & ‘Court’

In Vijay Pal Garg & Ors. Vs Pooja Bahry, appeal was filed before the NCLAT ordering that the affairs of the Corporate Debtor ought to be investigated. Accordingly, the Central Government is directed to order an investigation into the affairs of the Corporate Debtor under Section 210 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013.

The Appellants submitted that the Adjudicating Authority had incorrectly invoked Section 210(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 while exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of ‘I&B’ Code. The Appellants contends that for the purpose of exercise of jurisdiction as per Section 210(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, the meaning of term ‘Court’ or the ‘Tribunal’ has to be considered in terms of the definition specified under the Companies Act, 2013 and that as per Section 5(1) of ‘I&B’ Code the Adjudicating Authority as defined thereof clearly does not fall within the purview of the term ‘Court’ as defined in Section 2(29) of the Companies Act, 2013 and therefore cannot issue the direction for investigation.

The NCLAT observed that in the present case it is to be pointed out that the term Adjudicating Authority, as defined in Section 5(1) of IBC cannot come within the ambit of court as defined in Section 2(29) of the Companies Act, 2013. In fact, Section 2(29)(i) of the Companies Act defines ‘Court’ the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the Company concerned is situated etc. Section 2(29)(ii) of the Act speaks of ‘District Court’ and Section 29(iii) deals with the Court of Session, Section 29(iv) pertains to the Special Court constituted u/s 435 and Section 29(5) is concerned with any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class.

Likewise, the term Tribunal is defined u/s 2(90) of the Companies Act which means the NCLT constituted under Section 408 of the Companies Act, 2013.

It is significant to point out that a court of Law exercises judicial power in discharging judicial function and finally arrive at a conclusion. A ‘Tribunal’ is similar to a ‘Court’ but it is not a ‘Court’. In short, the ‘Court’ means a ‘Court’ of civil judicature and the and the ‘Tribunal’ means body of men appointed to decided the disputes /controversies (of course judicial power of the state being conferred in it. The procedure of a ‘Court of Law’ and ‘Tribunal’ will differ but they function in their own field. However, a ‘court of Law’ and the ‘Tribunal’ act judicially in both senses. To put it lucidly, a Tribunal does not have the trappings of a ‘court’. An Administrator is to exercise a prudent skill and care in dealing with property affairs, duly entrusted to him. Further, the Adjudicating Authority is to subjectively satisfy itself that a complete and comprehensive probe into the affairs of company is very much required, in the interest of Company because of maladministration and poor governance.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more