Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + HC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2017 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1663 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcyWinding up petition adjourned - order in BIFR Case was pending before AAIFR constituted under SICA - Held that:- It is settled law that Parliament is competent to enact a law transferring the jurisdiction exercised by High Courts in regard to any specified subject (other than those which are vested by express provisions of the Constitution) to any Court/Tribunal. IBC is one such law and the NCLT is such a forum as held in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS R. GANDHI PRESIDENT MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION [2010 (5) TMI 393 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] IBC [insolvency and bankruptcy code] itself confers jurisdiction on the High Court by virtue of notifications issued under Section 239 and Section 255 in regard to pending winding up proceedings where notices were already served on the respondent-company prior to 15.12.2016, it cannot be said that by virtue of Section 238, the High Court's jurisdiction gets taken away. What is made possible by IBC and permitted by Sections 239 and 255 cannot be said to be inconsistent under Section 238. Coming to the Moratorium order announced by the NCLT invoking Section 14(1)(a) the words "any Court of law" used therein cannot be interpreted as including this High Court and such a moratorium order cannot injuct this Court from continuing a winding up proceeding pending on it's file where notices were already served on the respondent-Company prior to 15.12.2016 and which is saved by the notifications issued by the Central Government under Section 239 and Section 255 of the IBC. Whether the Constitution of present proceedings before this Court, in the winding up petition filed by petitioner herein can be so injuncted by the NCLT, which is a tribunal not superior to this Court? - The principle of Comity of Courts cannot be invoked to restrain the High Court from proceeding with a winding up petition which Parliament intended the High Court alone to decide as per the notifications issued under Sections 239 and 255 of the IBC. Since this winding up petition did not get transferred to the NCLT by virtue of the notifications dated 7.12.2016 and 29.6.2017 issued under the very IBC, the NCLT cannot have any jurisdiction in regard to the petitioner or to the winding up petition and it's order cannot be interpreted to restrain this Court. The objection raised by the respondent company that the order of the NCLT bars this Court from continuing with this winding up petition against the respondent company cannot be accepted and it is accordingly rejected
|