Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + HC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2017 (12) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (12) TMI 392 - HC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy


Issues Involved:
1. Whether the initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by the 2nd respondent under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is justified.
2. Whether the parallel proceedings before DRT and NCLT amount to forum shopping.
3. Whether the actions of the 2nd respondent violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners.
4. Whether the NCLT has jurisdiction to proceed with the application despite pending adjudication before DRT.
5. Whether the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 override other laws.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process:
The petitioners argued that the initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process by the 2nd respondent under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is unwarranted since the petitioner company is willing to settle the outstanding amounts. The court referred to Section 7 of the Code, which allows a financial creditor to initiate the process if a default has occurred. The court noted that the Code provides a detailed procedure, including the requirement for the adjudicating authority to be satisfied that a default has occurred before admitting the application.

2. Parallel Proceedings and Forum Shopping:
The petitioners contended that the initiation of proceedings before the NCLT while adjudication is pending before the DRT amounts to forum shopping. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a comprehensive code that consolidates various enactments. The Code explicitly allows filing an application under Section 7, notwithstanding the pendency of any proceedings under other laws like the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

3. Violation of Fundamental Rights:
The petitioners claimed that the actions of the 2nd respondent violate their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The court referred to the statement of objects and reasons for enacting the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which aims to provide a time-bound process for insolvency resolution. The court held that the Code's provisions are designed to balance the interests of all stakeholders and do not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners.

4. Jurisdiction of NCLT:
The petitioners argued that the NCLT should not proceed with the application while adjudication is pending before the DRT. The court referred to Section 60 of the Code, which designates the NCLT as the adjudicating authority for corporate persons and vests it with all the powers of the DRT. The court held that the NCLT has jurisdiction to proceed with the application and that the Code's provisions override any inconsistent laws.

5. Overriding Effect of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
The court emphasized that Section 238 of the Code states that its provisions shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other law. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, which held that the Code is a comprehensive and exhaustive code on insolvency matters. The court concluded that the Code overrides other laws and that the process envisaged in the Code must be continued.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process by the 2nd respondent is justified, the parallel proceedings do not amount to forum shopping, the actions of the 2nd respondent do not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights, the NCLT has jurisdiction to proceed, and the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 override other laws.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates