2023 (7) TMI 1185 - SCH - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Filing of petition with leave to appeal - parties in the proceedings or not - mis-disclosure of facts for seeking condonation of delay - HELD THAT - It is not required to interfere with the oblique endeavour of the petitioner through the present proceeding as it is their say that their own appeal is pending before the NCLAT. It will be for the NCLAT to take a call on its own merit in the appeal filed by the petitioner and respondent No.1 - M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. would have equally all defences available including the plea of limitation. SLP is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of PIL regarding Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Review application by respondent No. 1.
3. Special Leave Petition against the review application.
4. Litigation before NCLAT.
5. Mis-disclosure of facts for condonation of delay.
6. Appeal before NCLAT by Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.
7. Civil Appeal No. 385 of 2023.

1. Dismissal of PIL regarding Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
A PIL filed in the High Court of Tripura at Agartala was dismissed regarding issues with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The subsequent SLP against this dismissal was also rejected. Respondent No.1 later filed a petition seeking leave to appeal against the original order, claiming they were not parties in the earlier proceedings and certain observations affected their pending litigation. The SLP was dismissed with liberty to approach the High Court for relief. A review application was then filed by respondent No. 1, leading to an order clarifying the position concerning the pending litigation.

2. Review application by respondent No. 1:
Respondent No. 1 filed a review application after the dismissal of the SLP, which was decided by an order making observations related to the pending litigation of respondent No. 1. The order clarified the position in this context. The present SLP is directed against this order, highlighting the ongoing litigation before the NCLAT that did not result in a favorable outcome for the petitioner.

3. Special Leave Petition against the review application:
The SLP filed in January 2023 challenges the order resulting from the review application. The respondent argued for the dismissal of the matter due to alleged mis-disclosure of facts for seeking condonation of delay, pointing out the petitioner's awareness of the review petition's outcome based on proceedings before the NCLAT. However, the Court declined to intervene, emphasizing that the NCLAT should assess the appeal filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 1 independently, with all defenses available.

4. Litigation before NCLAT:
Considerable litigation concerning the matter was pending before the NCLAT, with previous orders from the Court directing the NCLAT to decide on the permissibility of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.'s appeal withdrawal. The Court noted that the NCLAT should evaluate the appeals on their merits, allowing all parties, including Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., to present their defenses, including the plea of limitation.

5. Mis-disclosure of facts for condonation of delay:
The respondent contended that the matter should be dismissed due to alleged mis-disclosure of facts when seeking condonation of delay, despite the short period involved. The Court acknowledged this argument but decided not to interfere, emphasizing that the NCLAT should determine the appeal's outcome based on its merits.

6. Appeal before NCLAT by Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.:
The Court highlighted that the NCLAT should independently assess the appeal filed by Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., allowing all parties to present their defenses, including the plea of limitation. The SLP was ultimately dismissed, leaving the matter for the NCLAT to decide.

7. Civil Appeal No. 385 of 2023:
In this appeal, the Court declined to entertain the matter, considering the circumstances of the impugned order passed after remit from the Court regarding the right of respondent No. 1 to withdraw the appeal before the NCLAT. The appellant's claim of having an independent appeal pending was noted, with the Court emphasizing that the NCLAT should evaluate all appeals on their merits, allowing all parties to present their defenses, including the plea of limitation. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.