Skip to main content

Writ petition before High Court against orders of NCLT not maintainable

In IDEAL SURGICALS vs NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOCHI, writ petition was filed before the Kerala High Court alleging that the appeals appeals and stay petitions of the Petitioner against the order of the NCLT in the matter of the Corporate Resolution of PVS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL are not being taken up by the NCLAT as the NCLAT is on leave. That the appeals have been accepted by the NCLAT, but are yet to be numbered and posted for admission. The Petitioners alleged that  in the meanwhile, if the resolution process is continued in accordance with the order of the NCLT, the appeals will be rendered infructuous. In such circumstances, the High Court can, in the interest of justice, exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to safeguard the interest of the petitioners, till the appeals are taken up for consideration.

Objecting to the petition, the Respondents refuted that the averment in the writ petitions that the appeals are not being taken up. The appeals are defective and will be taken up only after the defects are cured. The Respondents pointed out that the NCLAT is functioning and the appeals filed by other Operational Creditors against the NCLT order had come up for admission. However, no stay or even status quo order was granted. It is contended that interference by the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, will defeat the very objective of the Code, which has been enacted with a view to consolidate and amend the law relating to insolvency resolution. 

Referring to the decision of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Sulochana Gupta vs and others v. RBG Enterprises Pvt. Ltd and others, the High Court decided that writ petition under Article 226 against an order of the NCLT is not maintainable.



Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
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