Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 892 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyInitiation of CIRP - Jurisiction of NCLT to admit the application u/s 7 - Registration of the applicant, non-banking financial institution (NBFC), was cancelled during the pendency of the proceedings - Financial Creditors or not - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the present proceedings have been initiated against Sungrowth as a corporate guarantor. Section 5A defines Corporate Guarantor which means a corporate person. Corporate person, we have already explained that it would not include a financial service provider. Thus, looking from any angle, Sungrowth having the registration in terms of Section 3(17) as financial service provider by the financial service regulator in terms of Section 3(18) by RBI as on 28.03.2001 which continued up to 09.07.2018/11.07.2018 cannot in any case be called a banking institution. It has to be called a non-baking financial institution and in such scenario the application filed under Section 7 of the Code on 08.06.2018 was not maintainable on that date and therefore, the Adjudicating Authority had no jurisdiction to invoke its power for the purpose of initiation of CIRP proceedings. The finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/ inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a Court/Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate, defeating the legislative animation. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. Regard is to be had to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Health Services, Haryana, [2013 (7) TMI 988 - SUPREME COURT], in which it has been held that if the Adjudicating Authority does not have the jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings then the said proceedings are nonest in the eyes of law and such an issue can be raised even in appeal also. There is a merit in the appeal and the same is hereby allowed.
|