9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , learned Senior counsel for the petitioner does not press his prayer challenging vires of Section 4 (b) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 as modified by the Code. He further submits that the question as to whether Trade Unions can invoke the jurisdiction of NCLT under the Code is subjudice before the Supreme Court and they would abide by the decision of the Supreme Court. This statement is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner-trade union to challenge the vires of the Code, if so advised, for it is submitted that the trade unions have been wrongly denied the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the NCLT under the Code. We direct that the interim orders passed on 16th June, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Union has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Section 4(b) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Repeal Act, 2003 alleging inter alia that the provisions of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ( Code for short) do not provide for an efficacious remedy for implementing the directions of the Supreme Court in order dated 13th November, 2014 reported as Ghanshyam Sarda v. Shiv Shankar Trading Company (2015) 1 SCC (298) and order dated 18th November, 2016 passed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.338/2014 . Another prayer made in the writ petition is for passing appropriate orders or directing the Union of India to remove difficulties and provide for a remed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the scheme for revival of the company. This exercise was to be completed within two months. * The transfer of Katihar property without express leave or permission of the BIFR was held to be questionable but since the transferee was not before the Supreme Court, the appropriate assessment of the same was to be done by the BIFR. As part of this exercise, BIFR was to consider and assess whether there was any necessity and expedience to sell the property in question and after examining the whole matrix of the sale consideration for the said transaction, the appropriate directions were to be passed as contained in para 38. Apart from this, in the order on the contempt proceedings dated 18th November 2016, the Supreme Court had m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner and the respondent No. 6 have alleged that the respondent No. 3-company has violated the aforementioned orders. Contention of the respondent No. 3 is that they have not violated any orders. Respondent No. 7, on the other hand, states that he is a bonafide purchaser for good value. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the said aspect and leave the question open. 10. Whether or not there was/is any violation, and the effect thereof and the consequences following therefrom, would be examined by the NCLT. While dealing with the aforesaid situation, the NCLT would examine the directions given and findings recorded in the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 13th November, 2014 reported as (2015) 1 SCC 298 . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
