Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the application before the Adjudicating Authority was maintainable in view of the earlier sanctioned revival scheme and the subsequent legal position under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code framework.
Analysis: The order proceeded on the basis that the dispute stood covered by the earlier decision in Spartek Ceramics, where the same notification of 24 May 2017 was held to be beyond the scope of the removal of difficulties power and therefore ineffective to confer jurisdiction on the Adjudicating Authority. The impugned proceedings were also examined in the light of the sanctioned scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies regime and the effect sought to be given to such schemes under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, but the controlling legal position was that the notification could not enlarge jurisdiction beyond what the statute permitted.
Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and the impugned order was without jurisdiction.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondent was left at liberty to seek relief before the appropriate forum.
Ratio Decidendi: A notification issued under the removal of difficulties power cannot confer jurisdiction or validate a proceeding if it travels beyond the scope of the parent insolvency legislation.