2021 (1) TMI 718 - HC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking listing of its petition, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, before the appropriate bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) - case of the Petitioner is that the Registrar of the NCLT has failed to even list the Petitioner s matter before the appropriate bench of NCLT, on the ground that the threshold of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCLT has now been amended by a notification dated 24th November, 2020, from ₹ 1 lakh, to ₹ 1 crore - HELD THAT - This court is of the opinion that the question as to whether the NCLT has jurisdiction to entertain a particular case or not cannot be determined by the Registrar in the administrative capacity. The Registrar would have to place the matter before the appropriate bench of the NCLT, for the said question to be judicially determined. The appropriate bench of the NCLT would have to then, take a considered view as to whether notice is liable to be issued in the matter or not. The question as to whether the notification dated 24th March, 2020 applies to a particular petition that has been filed prior to the said notification or not is also a question to be determined by the Bench of the NCLT and not by the Registrar of the Tribunal - it is directed that the petition under section 9 of the IBC, moved by the Petitioner before the NCLT, shall be placed by the Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Listing of petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code before the appropriate bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), determination of pecuniary jurisdiction of NCLT, applicability of notification dated 24th November, 2020, to cases filed prior to the notification.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking listing of its matter under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code before the NCLT. The petitioner claimed that the Registrar of the NCLT failed to list the matter before the appropriate bench due to an amendment in the pecuniary jurisdiction threshold of the NCLT. The petitioner argued that the question of NCLT's jurisdiction should be decided by the NCLT bench and not the Registrar. Reference was made to a judgment by the NCLT Kochi, suggesting that the notification may not apply retrospectively to disputes arising before the pandemic.

The respondent's counsel mentioned that the judgment of the NCLT Kochi has been stayed by the Kerala High Court. The court opined that the determination of NCLT's jurisdiction should be judicially decided by the appropriate NCLT bench and not the Registrar in an administrative capacity. The court directed the Registrar to place the petition before an appropriate bench for further proceedings within ten days. It was emphasized that the question of the notification's applicability to petitions filed before its issuance is to be decided by the NCLT bench, not the Registrar.

In conclusion, the court directed the Registrar to list the petitioner's Section 9 petition before the appropriate NCLT bench for further proceedings in accordance with the law. The court also instructed the Registrar to provide advance notice of the listing to the petitioner's counsel. The present petition and all pending applications were disposed of based on the above directions.