9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 49 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyTerritorial Jurisdiction - Maintainability of petition before NCLT, Jaipur Bench, since as per Section 60(1) of IBC, 2016, the same should be presented before the NCLT Bench having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the Corporate Debtor is located - HELD THAT - This bench has no jurisdiction in the matter due to territorial prescription as per Section 60(1). Under the circumstances no further prosecution of this matter is possible at NCLT, Jaipur. However, in case this bench directs the return of the petition for fresh filing before New Delhi bench where the registered office of the Corporate Debtor is located, it may cause inconvenience to the Petitioner. The other alternative is to transfer the case. It is seen that as per Rule 16 of NCLT Rules, the power to transfer a case lies with the Hon'ble President NCLT. Delay and inconvenience may be obviated if the Hon'ble President accords approval to transfer the case to NCLT, New Delhi. Application allowed.
Issues: Jurisdiction of NCLT Jaipur Bench under Section 60(1) of IBC, 2016
In the judgment delivered by the National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, the issue revolved around the maintainability of a petition before the NCLT Jaipur Bench when the registered office of the Corporate Debtor was located in New Delhi. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection through IA No. 135/JPR/2022, citing Section 60(1) of the IBC, 2016, which mandates that the Adjudicating Authority should have territorial jurisdiction over the place of the Corporate Debtor's registered office. The Petitioner argued that since the work was done in Bikaner, Rajasthan, and the Respondent had an office in Rajasthan, the petition was appropriately filed before NCLT Jaipur Bench. However, the bench concluded that it lacked jurisdiction due to the territorial prescription outlined in Section 60(1) of the IBC, 2016, and further prosecution of the matter at NCLT Jaipur was not possible. The judgment highlighted the options available to address the jurisdictional issue. It was noted that directing the return of the petition for fresh filing before the New Delhi bench would cause inconvenience to the Petitioner. Alternatively, the case could be transferred to NCLT New Delhi as per Rule 16 of the NCLT Rules, with the power to transfer lying with the Hon'ble President of NCLT. The bench emphasized that obtaining the Hon'ble President's approval for transferring the case to NCLT New Delhi would obviate delay and inconvenience. Ultimately, due to the Respondent's objections and the clear provisions of Section 60(1) of the IBC, 2016, IA No. 135/JPR/2022 was allowed, and the matter was disposed of accordingly. Furthermore, in consideration of the observations made and Rule 16, the Registry was directed to transfer the case, CP No. (IB)-38/9/JPR/2021, to NCLT New Delhi, subject to the prior concurrence of the Hon'ble President, NCLT, New Delhi, along with any other necessary directions. This comprehensive analysis of the jurisdictional issue under Section 60(1) of the IBC, 2016, underscores the importance of adhering to the prescribed territorial jurisdiction for matters brought before the National Company Law Tribunal.
|
