9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Notification dated 1st June 2016 issued by Central Government under sub-section (1) of Section 419 and the Rule 64 of NCLT Rule it is clear the Benches, including Principal Bench have territorial jurisdiction on the Companies exclusively on the basis of location of the registered office of such company. In fact, this law is also being followed by the Principal Bench of NCLT, New Delhi for placing all the petitioners before one or other Bench and that Section 488-B of Act 1956, cannot be exception of the same. For the reasons aforesaid we set aside the impugned order dated 6th December 2016 passed by the "Principal Bench" of NCLT, New Delhi in C.P. No. 01/2015 with the direction to the Registry of the Principal Bench, NCLT, New Delhi to transfer the C.P. No. 01/2015 to the NCLT Bench at Chennai, where registered office of the appellant company is situated. - Company Appeal (AT) No. 03 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 9-3-2017 - Mr. Balvinder Singh and Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankur Saija, Mr. Zafar Khurshid, Mr. Nooruddin Dhilla, Mr. Anupam Lal Das Gupta, Ms. Gargi Srivastava and Mr. Aadil Singh Boparai, Advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled an application for order before the Principal Bench after 01.06.2016. According to the non-applicant - petitioner this is an attempt to delay the conclusion of the present proceeding and the issue concerning territorial jurisdiction has lost its significance. It has been insisted Rule 64 of the NCLT, Rules would not prevent the NCLT Delhi to adjudicate the present matter. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and are of the view that the instant application is liable to be dismissed. A perusal of the record shows that the applicant - respondent had filed various applications before the Tribunal. It has also appeared before the Tribunal on various dates of hearing as is evident from the interlocutory orders dated 25.06.2016, 27.07.2016, 01.08.2016, 08.08.2016, 12.08.2016, 24.08.2016, 01.09.2016, 18.10.2016 and so on and so forth. Objection, if any, to territorial jurisdiction is required to be taken at the earliest. Moreover, all matters under Section 388-B of the Companies Act, 1956 used to be heard by the Principal Bench of the erstwhile Company Law Board in accordance with the regulation framed by it. Taking note of the aforesaid facts the Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the registered office of the concerned company. iii Under the 1956 Act, an appeal also lay from the orders of the CLB under Section 10F of the 1956 Act. The High Court to which such appeal lay was determined solely by the location of the registered office of the company concerned. Reliance has also been placed on Supreme Court decision in Stridewell Leathers (P.) Ltd. vs. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P.) Ltd. reported in (1994) 1 SCC 34; 7. According to respondents, appellant had already appeared before the Principal Bench at New Delhi on different dates between 1st August 2016 and 18th October 2016. It is also submitted that even otherwise the Principal Bench, New Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to entertain Company Petition under Section 388-B of Act 1956 in terms of order dated 25th July 2016 passed by Principal Bench of NCLT in Union of India v. Panther Fincap Management Services Ltd. [Company Petition No. 122(MB) 2008]. 8. It is further submitted that the appellant is attempting to delay the present proceedings and cannot have any objection for entertainment and adjudication of the petition by the Principal Bench of NCLT, New Delhi. 9. Senior Learned cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... constituted. In short, the original jurisdiction of the High Courts in respect of the matters under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act is now transferred to Company Law Board. 7. Earlier when the original jurisdiction was in the High Court determined by Section 10(l)(a) of the Act as the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company concerned is situate, admittedly the appeal from any order passed by the Company Judge of the High Court in exercise of the original jurisdiction was to a Division Bench of the same High Court. The question, therefore, is whether with the transfer of the original jurisdiction of High Courts to the Company Law Board in such matters, there is a similar substitution of the appellate forum to a centralised High Court having jurisdiction over the place of sitting of the Company Law Board where the order under appeal is made or the forum of appeal remains unaffected by the change of the forum of original jurisdiction. This is the precise point for determination in the present case. xxx xxx xxx 18. For the aforesaid reason, we are of the opinion that the expression the High Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y sub-section (1) of Section 419 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Central Government constituted the Benches vide Notification dated 1st June 2016, as shown below:- - NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 1st June, 2016 S.O. 1935(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 419 of the Companies Act, 2013 ( 18 of 2013), the Central Government hereby constitutes the following Benches of the National Company Law Tribunal mentioned in column (2) of the table below, located at the place mentioned in column (3) and to exercise the jurisdiction over the area mentioned in column (4), namely:- S. No. Name of Bench Location Territorial Jurisdiction of the Bench (1) (2) (3) (4) 1 (a) National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench. (b) National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench. New Delhi (1) State of Haryana. (2) State of Rajasthan. (3) Union territory of Delhi. 2 (a) National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in in this section referred to as the Company Law Board) constituted under sub-section (1) of section 10E of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) immediately before such date shall stand transferred to the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall dispose of such matters, proceedings or cases in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 16. The 'Rule 64' of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, which deals with procedure in respect of matters earlier dealt by other quasi-judicial bodies (Company Law Board), mandates transfer of the pending proceedings with the Company Law Board to the respective Benches of Tribunal exercising corresponding territorial jurisdiction and reads as follows: PART- VII Procedures in respect of matters earlier dealt by other quasi-judicial bodies, courts and tribunals 64. Matter earlier dealt by Company Law Board.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an original civil action or case arising out of the Act, or any other corresponding provision of the Companies Act, 1956 or Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 is filed or pending before the Company Law Board on the date on which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no statutory enactment conferring territorial jurisdiction on the basis of where the cause of action has arisen. 19. The Notification dated 1st June 2016 merely prescribes the territories over which the different Benches of the NCLT will have territorial jurisdiction. It does not provide that such Benches will have territorial jurisdiction where cause of action has arisen within its territorial limits. There is no Rule in the NCLT Rules which provides that territorial jurisdiction of any Bench of the NCLT can be invoked on the basis of cause of action. In other words, the Benches of the NCLT within its territorial jurisdiction can only exercise jurisdiction over the concerned company which is present within its territorial jurisdiction i.e., where the company having its registered office. 20. The Company Law Board Regulation 1991' were framed by Company Law Board in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (6) of Section 10-E of the Companies Act, 1956. Under the said provision, the Company Law Board empowered its Chairman to specify matters which may be dealt with by a Bench, as quoted below: - 4. Power of the Chairman to specify matters which may be dealt w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
