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

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