9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1474 - SCH - Insolvency and BankruptcyReview petition - it was mentioned and submitted that this Court had overlooked the judgment of this Court in ES KRISHNAMURTHY ORS. VERSUS M/S BHARATH HI TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD. 2021 (12) TMI 683 - SUPREME COURT to which the attention of this Court had not been drawn - Revenue submits that certain observations made by us in the judgment and order under review could be interpreted in a manner that might be contrary to the aims and objects of the IBC and render the law infructuous. HELD THAT - It is well settled that judgments and observations in judgments are not to be read as provisions of statute. Judicial utterances and/or pronouncements are in the setting of the facts of a particular case. To interpret words and provisions of a statute it may become necessary for the Judges to embark upon lengthy discussions. The words of Judges interpreting statutes a re not to be interpreted as statutes. There are no grounds for review of the judgment and order. The Review Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Issues: Review of judgment based on interpretation of Section 7(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) regarding the powers of the adjudicating authority and the question of mandatory versus discretionary provisions.
The judgment by the Supreme Court pertains to a review petition concerning the interpretation of Section 7(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The petition was listed for open court hearing due to the oversight of a previous judgment in E.S. Krishnamurthy & Ors. vs. Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd. The attention was drawn to specific paragraphs of the said judgment. The Court highlighted that the adjudicating authority under Section 7(5) of the IBC has the power to either admit or reject an application, with no provision for any other action. The authority cannot compel parties to settle a dispute. The Solicitor General emphasized the limited actions available to the adjudicating authority under Section 7(5), stressing that the authority must either admit or reject an application based on a default occurrence verification. The Court clarified that the issue in Krishnamurthy's case was not about the mandatory or discretionary nature of Section 7(5) but rather about whether the adjudicating authority could impose a settlement on unwilling parties, which was answered negatively. The Solicitor General expressed concerns that certain observations in the judgment might contradict the objectives of the IBC, but the Court dismissed these apprehensions, stating that judicial statements are case-specific and not to be equated with statutory provisions. The Court emphasized that judicial interpretations are not legislative provisions and are made in the context of specific cases. Ultimately, the Court found no grounds for a review of the judgment and disposed of the review petition. Any pending applications were also deemed disposed of. The judgment reaffirmed the limited actions available to the adjudicating authority under Section 7(5) of the IBC and clarified the scope of its powers in admitting or rejecting applications without compelling parties to settle disputes.
|
