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>High Court upholds writ challenging NCLT judgment under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code</h1> <h3>S.A. Gold Ispat Private Ltd. Versus The J&K Bank Limited and others</h3> S.A. Gold Ispat Private Ltd. Versus The J&K Bank Limited and others - TMI Issues:1. Maintainability of the writ petition challenging the judgment of the National Company Law Tribunal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.Analysis:1. The issue of maintainability of the writ petition challenging the judgment of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was raised before the High Court. The respondent argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as the Code provides an alternative remedy of appeal against the NCLT's order. The petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the NCLT had committed errors and lacked jurisdiction, justifying the High Court's intervention despite the availability of an appeal remedy under the Code.2. The counsel for the petitioner highlighted that the NCLT's jurisdictional errors and failure to adhere to the provisions of the Act warranted the High Court's intervention. Both sides relied on judgments from the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court to support their arguments. The High Court noted that it should focus on the maintainability of the writ petition and not delve into factual aspects extensively at this stage.3. The High Court considered the arguments presented by both parties and emphasized the distinction between lack of jurisdiction and wrongful exercise of jurisdiction. The court acknowledged that the writ jurisdiction against NCLT's orders is not entirely barred, depending on the circumstances of each case. The court deemed the present petition maintainable based on the grounds raised, indicating that the issues concerning the NCLT's order required further examination.4. The petitioner challenged the NCLT's order on various grounds, including procedural violations and the impact of civil court proceedings on the case. The High Court recognized the importance of addressing these foundational issues raised in the writ petition, leading to the conclusion that the petition was maintainable for further consideration. The court clarified that its decision did not imply any opinion on the case's merits and scheduled the next hearing for the respondents to file their counter by a specified date.
TaxTMI 