9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1816 - HC - Companies LawOppression and Mismanagement - Maintainability of petition - appellate remedy available to the petitioners - section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - This Bench has considered a similar question arising under the Companies Act, 1956, proceedings arising out of an application under Section 241 and 244 of the Companies Act dealing with oppression and mis-management in CRP.No.3739 of 2016 2019 (9) TMI 535 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . In that case against an interim order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed in this Court. In that case, like in the present case a preliminary objection was taken regarding the maintainability of the Revision Petition because of the Appellate remedy provided under Section 421 of the Companies Act. Petition dismissed as not maintainable.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Availability of an appellate remedy under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Maintainability of Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India The primary issue in these Civil Revision Petitions is whether they are maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, given the availability of an appellate remedy. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions, arguing that orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) can be challenged by filing an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The petitioners, on the other hand, contended that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be taken away merely because an alternate remedy is available. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others (2003 (6) SCC 675), which outlines the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. The judgment states that the High Court can intervene to correct gross errors of jurisdiction, flagrant disregard of law or procedure, or violations of natural justice, among other things. Issue 2: Availability of an Appellate Remedy under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides an appellate remedy against orders passed by the NCLT. The section specifies that any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority may prefer an appeal to the NCLAT within thirty days, extendable by fifteen days for sufficient cause. The court noted that this Bench had previously considered a similar question under the Companies Act, 1956, in proceedings arising from an application under Sections 241 and 244 dealing with oppression and mismanagement. In CRP.No.3739 of 2016, the Bench refused to entertain a petition under Article 227 due to the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 421 of the Companies Act. Given this precedent, the court concluded that the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, precludes the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Conclusion The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions on the grounds that they are not maintainable due to the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the cases. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were also closed.
|
