2020 (2) TMI 1371 - HC - Companies Law

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternate remedy of appeal - It is contended that the learned Judge/Member is sitting in the First Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal and therefore he is not able to take up the matters which are listed before the Bench II of the National Company Law Tribunal - HELD THAT - We do not propose to interfere with the orders of the learned Single Judge on the issue of maintainability. However we hope and trust that the National Company Law Tribunal would entertain the application and pass orders within a period of two weeks from today so that the matter can be proceeded ahead. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against the order declining to entertain the writ petition due to availability of alternate remedy under Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis:
1. Issue of maintainability: The appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge, who refused to entertain the writ petition citing the availability of an alternate remedy under the Companies Act, 2013. The appellants argue that they have already filed an application before the National Company Law Tribunal but face delays due to a shortage of Members in the Tribunal. The appellants contend that the Judge sitting in the First Bench is unable to address matters listed before Bench II, causing delays in redressing their grievances.

2. Court's decision: The High Court, comprising Mr. A. P. Sahi, Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad, refrains from interfering with the Single Judge's decision on maintainability. However, the Court expresses hope that the National Company Law Tribunal will promptly address the application and issue orders within two weeks to facilitate the progression of the matter. The writ appeal is disposed of without costs, and the related application is closed as a consequence of the judgment.

This judgment highlights the importance of exhausting alternate remedies available under specific statutes before seeking relief through writ petitions. The Court's stance emphasizes the significance of adherence to procedural requirements and the proper forum for addressing legal disputes, ensuring efficient and effective resolution of matters within the appropriate legal framework.