Skip to main content

NCLT has sole Jurisdiction in handling matters of Insolvency of Corporate Debtor

In M/s.kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd v. K.bharathi And Ors, the petition has been filed under the writ of Mandamus directing the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai (NCLT) to dispose of the application filed by M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (the Petitioner) in MA No.538 of 2019 in CP No. 710 of 2018 under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The NCLT vide its order dated March 26, 2021 observed that IBC is time-bound. The complexities in this matter and pending litigations before various courts have been a major impediment in conducting corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”). Since there is an ongoing matter in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, It instructed all the parties to thereby for direction as whether the NCLT can proceed according to the IBC rules and regulations.

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras held that the NCLT has “sought to pass the buck”. Noted that the NCLT irreverently has stated that NCLT working on time bound basis might not apply to the court proceedings. It should adhere to the propriety in conformity with the superior authority which the current court exercises.

Further noted, that the NCLT should decide whether the matter should be decided or not or if there lies any injunction. In either case, it should confine itself to its area of specialisation and deal with the respective matter without waiting for any advice from this court, which is anyway not obliged to extend.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
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