2019 (6) TMI 1197 - HC - Companies Law

Jurisdiction to entertain an application from a creditor of the company - scope of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - HELD THAT - Mr. Sakya Sen, learned Advocate appearing in support of the application being CA 103 of 2019, which is essentially an application for leave under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, intends to move the said application. The final orders in the application being CA 92 of 2019, which relates to the jurisdiction of this Court to proceed with the CP 1 of 2016 is not yet passed. C.A. No. 103 of 2019 is adjourned till CA 92 of 2019 is heard and finally disposed of - Let all these applications along with CP 1 of 2016 appear on 21st June, 2019.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of High Court to proceed with CP 1 of 2016 under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)

The judgment by Mr. Arindam Mukherjee of the Calcutta High Court involved multiple parties, including 99 home buyers claiming transactions with Avani Projects and Infrastructures Limited. The main argument centered around the jurisdiction of the court to proceed with CP 1 of 2016 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, representing Reliance Commercial Private Limited and Reliance Home Finance Private Limited, emphasized that the court should retain jurisdiction over the matter. He clarified that he was not seeking a stay on the NCLT's order or challenging its jurisdiction under the IBC. On the other hand, Mr. Kumarjit Banerjee, representing Himalayan Endeavor Limited, referred to a Division Bench Judgment and suggested that the court should allow NCLT to proceed with the case. The State Bank of India also filed a supplementary affidavit, supporting its position. The hearing of various applications, including CA 92 of 2019 and CA 103 of 2019, was adjourned until the jurisdictional issue related to CP 1 of 2016 was resolved. All applications, along with CP 1 of 2016, were scheduled to appear before the court on 21st June 2019 for further proceedings.