TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Liquidator's Jurisdiction Application Dismissed, Emphasizing Registered Office Location</h1> <h3>Abhay N. Manudhane Versus Gupta Coal India (P.) Ltd.</h3> Abhay N. Manudhane Versus Gupta Coal India (P.) Ltd. - TMI Issues involved:Liquidator seeking directions for institution of legal proceedings on behalf of Corporate Debtor under Liquidation, jurisdiction of NCLT benches for filing cases against debtors, interpretation of section 60(5) of IBC, 2016.Analysis:The Liquidator filed MA 1731/2019 seeking directions to file legal proceedings on behalf of the Corporate Debtor under Liquidation. The Liquidator emphasized the need to expedite the process of realising assets and recovering debts, especially from unresponsive debtors. The application aimed to seek permission to file cases against defaulter Corporate Debtors before the Mumbai Bench of NCLT, even if their registered offices were in different states. The Liquidator referred to a Supreme Court judgment highlighting the historical evolution of provisions related to winding up proceedings to support the application.The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the Liquidator and noted the statutory provision that cases against a company should be filed where its registered office is situated. The Tribunal clarified that jurisdiction is determined by the registered office location and cannot be altered under section 60(5) of the Code. The Tribunal emphasized that it is not within its purview to shift jurisdiction from specified benches to Mumbai Bench based on section 60(5) of the Code. Consequently, the Tribunal found the application lacking merit and rejected MA 1731 of 2019.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the request to shift jurisdiction to the Mumbai Bench for filing cases against debtors of the Corporate Debtor was not permissible under the law. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions regarding jurisdiction and highlighted that such provisions cannot be circumvented using section 60(5) of the Code.
TaxTMI 