2019 (6) TMI 691 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Consideration of the Resolution Plan submitted by JSW Steel - HELD THAT - The matter is pending before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi and in absence of any order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, we are not inclined to entertain this Appeal. The Hon ble High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has also supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We are not expressing any opinion as to whether they have the supervisory jurisdiction over all the Tribunals or not, but it is not clear as to how the Punjab and Haryana High Court can pass an order, which has no territorial jurisdiction over Delhi, where Principal Bench of National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi is situated, who is considering the matter. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order dated 23rd April, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority
- Delay in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
- Remittance of matter back to the Adjudicating Authority
- Directions from the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana
- Jurisdiction of the High Court to pass orders

Analysis:
The Appeal was filed by the Committee of Creditors against an order dated 23rd April, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant raised concerns regarding the prolonged delay in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and requested directions for an early disposal of the matter. Previously, the matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority by the Appellate Tribunal for consideration of the Resolution Plan submitted by JSW Steel. However, the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana issued directions in a writ petition, questioning the Adjudicating Authority's decisions in light of the Supreme Court's directions. The High Court's jurisdiction to issue such orders was challenged, especially considering the territorial jurisdiction. The Appellate Tribunal declined to entertain the Appeal due to the absence of any order by the Adjudicating Authority.

The Counsel for the Appellant argued against the writ petition filed by one of the Directors of the company, stating that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to intervene in a pending matter. The Senior Counsel representing the Directors and Promoters of the company opposed the Appellant's prayer, asserting that the Appeal under Section 61 was not maintainable without a decision by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellate Tribunal noted the lack of clarity on how the High Court passed orders without territorial jurisdiction over the Principal Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal in Delhi. The Tribunal emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority should decide the case on merit in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by any order except those from the Appellate Tribunal and the Supreme Court. The Tribunal refrained from expressing opinions on the High Court's order and the intervention sought by the Ex-Directors and Promoters, as the final order was pending for more than 270 days. The Appeal was disposed of with these observations, and no costs were awarded.