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

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