9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 300 - HC - Companies LawMaintainability of petition - alternate equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal - sections 32 and 61 of the IBC - HELD THAT - In the present case, to consider the grievance of the petitioners that the impugned order is a nullity and the contra version that it is not a nullity, but at best vitiated by a irregularity, we would be required to go through the facts in detail. On the records being summoned and perused by us, we realised that there is indeed a serious factual dispute. A Writ Court would ordinarily abstain from going into and deciding such disputes, when parties are not prejudiced and the law provides for an appeal. In IBC, the (NCLAT) Appellate Authority is empowered to consider and decide all questions of fact and law. No general rule can be said to be laid down in the judgments brought to our notice. We do not think that we should, therefore, entertain the present petition. The preliminary objection raised to the maintainability of the Writ Petition and proceed to dismiss it on the ground that the petitioners have alternate and equally efficacious remedy of filing on Appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and in that appeal, it can raise all grounds, including the one raised in the Memo of the present petition. The original record and proceedings be returned by the Registry to the advocate appearing for the Union of India.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the acceptance of the second respondent's bid after the deadline. 2. Alleged collusion between the Resolution Professional, the Committee of Creditors, and the successful Resolution Applicant. 3. Violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Validity of the Tribunal's order passed by a Bench not comprising the original hearing Member. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Acceptance of the Second Respondent's Bid After the Deadline: The petitioner participated in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of respondent No.1 and submitted its Resolution Plan/Bid. The respondent No.1 accepted the bid of respondent No.2 after the last date of submission, which was after the petitioner's bid was already opened. The petitioner alleged illegality in the acceptance of the second respondent's bid, asserting that their bid, being the highest, should have been accepted. The petitioners challenged this process by filing Miscellaneous Application No. 1039 of 2019, which was rejected by the Tribunal while the Resolution Professional's application was accepted. 2. Alleged Collusion Between the Resolution Professional, the Committee of Creditors, and the Successful Resolution Applicant: The petitioners alleged collusion between the Resolution Professional, the Committee of Creditors, and the successful Resolution Applicant. They claimed that the Resolution Plans submitted by Kalpraj Dharamshi and Rekha Jhunjhunwala were accepted well beyond the stated deadline, and the petitioners immediately lodged their protest against this belated submission and acceptance. The petitioners sought the rejection of the Resolution Plans through Miscellaneous Application No. 1039 of 2019, alleging collusion and gross illegality in the process. 3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioners contended that the Tribunal deviated from the principle that "one who hears the matters must decide." The petitioners' Miscellaneous Application No. 1039 of 2019 was reserved for orders by a single Member (Mr. Shrawat). However, the final order was passed by a Bench comprising Mr. Shrawat and Mr. Chander Bhan Singh, Member (Technical), without the petitioners' consent. The petitioners argued that this departure from the principle of natural justice rendered the order null and void. They maintained that they did not agree to their application being heard by a Bench of two Members and that the Tribunal's course of action was contrary to law. 4. Validity of the Tribunal's Order Passed by a Bench Not Comprising the Original Hearing Member: The petitioners asserted that their Miscellaneous Application No. 1039 of 2019 was heard by a single Member (Mr. Shrawat) and reserved for orders. However, the final order was passed by a Bench comprising Mr. Shrawat and Mr. Chander Bhan Singh, Member (Technical). The petitioners argued that the Bench's composition was reconstituted without their consent, and the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned order without considering their objections. The petitioners claimed that this reconstitution and subsequent order were contrary to the principles of natural justice and the applicable legal provisions. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The Court emphasized that the petitioners could raise all grounds, including those raised in the present petition, in the appeal. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions and clarified that the facts of the case involved disputed questions, making it inappropriate for the Writ Court to interfere. The Court also noted that the principles of natural justice and the rule that "one who hears must decide" must be considered in the context of the facts and circumstances of each case.
|
