2019 (11) TMI 1669 - HC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of petition - efficacious remedy of appeal present or not - Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - time limitation - HELD THAT - The question of limitation raised by the petitioner is also a question that could be raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not satisfying that as the question of limitation is involved in the matter the petitioner is entitled to challenge the impugned order in this proceedings. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition challenging Ext.P5 order of the National Company Law Tribunal.
2. Barred by limitation - Entitlement to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. Disposal of the writ petition and granting a period of thirty days for approaching the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The High Court addressed the issue of the maintainability of the writ petition challenging Ext.P5 order of the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court noted that the petitioner did not establish that the remedy provided under the Code for redressal of grievances against Ext.P5 order was not efficacious. Consequently, the Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable.

2. The Court considered the argument raised by the petitioner regarding the limitation of Ext.P3 application, which led to the issuance of Ext.P5 order without jurisdiction. The petitioner sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, citing a decision of the Apex Court. Despite the petitioner's contention, the Court opined that the question of limitation could also be raised before the Appellate Tribunal. However, in light of the peculiar facts of the case, the Court decided to dispose of the writ petition while granting a breathing time of thirty days for the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal and seek necessary interim orders.

3. In conclusion, the Court held that the question of limitation raised by the petitioner could be addressed before the Appellate Tribunal. While not entirely convinced by the petitioner's argument, the Court decided to keep further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order in abeyance for thirty days to facilitate the petitioner's approach to the Appellate Tribunal. This decision aimed to enable the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the appropriate forum and obtain any required interim relief, as deemed necessary.