2021 (4) TMI 611 - HC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking directions to NCLAT, Delhi, to Hear and Decide the petitioner s representation / appeal on Legal interpretation and Legal procedures issues, as per relevant laws and rules - case of the Petitioner is that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, does not permit NCLAT to direct the filing of written submissions and judgments in a matter, however the NCLAT has vide the impugned orders, directed for the same. HELD THAT - The NCLAT being the duly constituted Appellate Tribunal, under the IBC, is free to regulate its procedure and the manner in which it wishes to hear matters, including issuing of directions for filing of written submissions and judgments. These procedural issues are to be regulated by the NCLAT on its own. This Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere with the same - The manner in which the Petitioner seems to be making repeated representations and submissions before the NCLAT clearly shows that the Petitioner is not being bonafide in his conduct. The Petition is dismissed with costs of ₹ 10,000/- to the High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) Legal Aid Society .

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to NCLAT orders directing filing of written submissions and judgments.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged orders dated 12th October, 2020, 17th December, 2020, and 5th January, 2021, passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), arguing that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, does not allow NCLAT to direct filing of written submissions and judgments. The petitioner contended that despite objections raised before NCLAT, the directions were not considered, and representations made to the Chairperson and Board members were ineffective. The petitioner also claimed that although written submissions were filed, the NCLAT directed copies to be provided to the respondents, leading to the writ petition challenging the impugned orders.

The NCLAT's orders directed parties to file written submissions and copies of judgments to streamline proceedings and facilitate early decision-making by focusing on raised issues and relevant judgments. The court found no fault in NCLAT's directive, emphasizing that such procedures aid in reducing oral hearings and expediting the adjudication process. The court dismissed concerns that sharing written submissions would compromise strategy, asserting that NCLAT, as the Appellate Tribunal under the IBC, has the authority to regulate its procedures, including directing the filing of submissions and judgments, without interference from external entities.

The court noted the petitioner's repeated representations before NCLAT and highlighted a prior petition dismissed for inappropriate language, indicating potential lack of good faith in the petitioner's actions. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and costs of &8377;10,000 were imposed on the petitioner, payable to the "High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) Legal Aid Society" within two weeks.