2024 (12) TMI 1460 - AT - IBC

Institution of a civil suit claiming a relief by way of a title over the 100 equity shares of the MRF - simultaneous pursuit of a civil suit and a company petition by the Appellant was permissible under the Companies Act, particularly in light of Section 430 of Companies Act or not - HELD THAT - The dismissal of the Company Petition on 10.08.2022, cannot be legally faulted, because admittedly on that date the Appellant was pursuing two simultaneous remedies, one by way of the Company Petition and the other, by way of a civil suit, which was pending despite of the undertaking given by the Appellant to withdraw the same. Though the withdrawal memo was filed, but no orders were passed till the Company Petition was taken up by the Ld. Tribunal on 10.08.2022 and orders were passed dismissing the company petition, on the ground that civil suit is being simultaneously pursued. It is a settled preposition of law constitutionally mandated, that a right to judicial remedies is a right which is safeguarded by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and under this right, nobody could be deprived of availing the judicial remedies before the competent Court of Law for redressal of his grievances, which in the instant case falls to be within an ambit of Section 59 of the Companies Act. But the same was denied by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority on account of the pendency of the civil suit, but we cannot ignore the fact which has been brought on record, that when this company appeal was being considered, it is a fact which is not denied, that on the withdrawal memo was filed in the civil suit except that the Lok Adalat dismissed the suit as withdrawn only on 13.08.2022 after the Company Petition got dismissed. Owing to the implications of the order passed on 13.08.2022, since in the light of the undertaking given by the Appellant before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to withdraw the suit, the same has been withdrawn though marginally at a later stage, in that eventuality, minor procedural technicalities should not create any hurdle as such against the Appellant for, depriving him for all times to come, from resorting to his judicial remedies. Therefore, as the suit has been withdrawn on 13.08.2022, the Company Petition No. 106(CHE)/2021, as preferred by the Appellant under Section 59 of the Companies Act, ought to have been considered on its merit. Conclusion - A right to judicial remedy, is a right envisaged under the Constitution, which cannot be deprived of, merely because of a minor procedural error or procedural technicalities. Petition allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The legal judgment presented revolves around the following core issues:

Whether the simultaneous pursuit of a civil suit and a company petition by the Appellant was permissible under the Companies Act, particularly in light of Section 430.
Whether the dismissal of the company petition due to the pendency of the civil suit was justified.
Whether the subsequent withdrawal of the civil suit after the dismissal of the company petition affects the Appellant's right to pursue the company petition on its merits.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Simultaneous Pursuit of Remedies

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 430 of the Companies Act prohibits the entertainment of civil suits in matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) or National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the Appellant had filed both a civil suit and a company petition, which contravened the bar on simultaneous remedies under Section 430.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Appellant had undertaken to withdraw the civil suit but had not completed the withdrawal process at the time of the company petition's dismissal.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied Section 430 to determine that the Appellant could not pursue both remedies simultaneously.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant argued that the civil suit was dismissed as withdrawn after the company petition's dismissal, thereby removing the bar under Section 430.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the simultaneous pursuit was initially impermissible, but the subsequent withdrawal of the civil suit necessitated reconsideration of the company petition.

Issue 2: Justification of Company Petition Dismissal

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The judgment considered the procedural requirements under the Companies Act and the implications of non-compliance with undertakings.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court reasoned that the dismissal was procedurally correct at the time due to the pending civil suit.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Appellant had filed a withdrawal memo for the civil suit, which was not acted upon until after the company petition's dismissal.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied procedural rules to uphold the initial dismissal but recognized the need for equitable relief due to subsequent developments.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant's argument regarding the subsequent dismissal of the civil suit was considered pivotal.
Conclusions: The court found the dismissal justified at the time but acknowledged the need to revisit the decision due to the withdrawal of the civil suit.

Issue 3: Effect of Civil Suit Withdrawal

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court considered the constitutional right to judicial remedies under Article 21 and the procedural impact of the civil suit's withdrawal.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court emphasized the importance of access to judicial remedies and the need to balance procedural technicalities with substantive justice.
Key Evidence and Findings: The civil suit was withdrawn after the company petition's dismissal, creating a situation where the Appellant was left without a remedy.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied constitutional principles to ensure the Appellant's right to pursue the company petition on its merits.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court considered the Appellant's procedural missteps but prioritized the right to judicial remedies.
Conclusions: The withdrawal of the civil suit justified the revival of the company petition for a merits-based decision.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "A right to judicial remedy, is a right envisaged under the Constitution, which cannot be deprived of, merely because of a minor procedural error or procedural technicalities."
Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the constitutional right to judicial remedies and the need for equitable relief in the face of procedural errors.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court quashed the dismissal of the company petition, allowing it to be reconsidered on its merits, and imposed costs on the Appellant for procedural discrepancies.

The judgment ultimately balanced procedural correctness with substantive justice, ensuring the Appellant's access to legal remedies while addressing procedural missteps.

← Previous Next →