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>Dismissal of Insolvency Application by NCLT Upheld; Appellate Tribunal Refers Maintainability Issue to High Court</h1> <h3>Agarpara Company Ltd. Versus Agarpara Jute Mills Company Ltd. & Ors</h3> The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissed the application by 'M/s. Agarpara Company Limited' as not maintainable under the Insolvency and ... Seeking permission to withdraw the special leave petition - whether the amendment made by the Central Government vide Notification dated 25th November, 2018 substituting Section 4(b) of the SICA Repeal Act, 2003 was within jurisdiction or not? - HELD THAT:- Learned counsel for the parties submit that the appellant cannot move before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in view of the decision of in RABINDRA KUMAR WALIA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2019 (2) TMI 2063 - SC ORDER]. However, from the order dated 4th February, 2019, it is found that the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the special leave petition. So the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn in the aforesaid background, the order passed being not binding on any of the party, following the decision in M/s. Spartek Ceramics India Ltd. [2018 (6) TMI 350 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] we are of the view that the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant stands revived before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and in terms of the liberty given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Spartek Ceramics India Ltd. [2018 (10) TMI 1660 - SUPREME COURT], the appellant may also seek to amend the Writ Petition within four weeks. Appeal disposed off. Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 4(b) of the SICA Repeal Act, 2003.2. Jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.3. Effect of the decision in 'Pr. Director General of Income Tax (Admn. & TPS) vs. M/s. Spartek Ceramics India Ltd.' on the present case.4. Revival of the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.Analysis:1. The case involved the interpretation of Section 4(b) of the SICA Repeal Act, 2003, which was amended in November 2016. The provision stated that any appeal, reference, or inquiry pending before the Appellate Authority or the Board under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, shall stand abated upon the dissolution of the Appellate Authority. It further allowed companies to make a reference to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 within a specified timeframe.2. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissed the application by 'M/s. Agarpara Company Limited' as not maintainable, citing previous decisions by the Appellate Tribunal and the Supreme Court. The NCLT referred to the decision in 'Pr. Director General of Income Tax (Admn. & TPS) vs. M/s. Spartek Ceramics India Ltd.' and the Supreme Court's decision in 'M/s. Spartek Ceramics India Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.' to support its ruling on the maintainability of the application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.3. The Appellate Tribunal had previously held that the amendment to Section 4(b) of the SICA Repeal Act, 2003 was without jurisdiction, rendering the application before the Adjudicating Authority not maintainable under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the appeal was not maintainable due to the amendment exceeding the scope of difficulties removal. Consequently, the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was revived, allowing the appellant to seek amendments within a specified timeframe.4. The Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere with the NCLT's judgment on the maintainability of the petition by 'M/s. Agarpara Company Limited.' The parties' counsels argued that the appellant could not approach the High Court of Delhi due to a Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court. However, as the Special Leave Petition was withdrawn, the Appellate Tribunal concluded that the Writ Petition stood revived before the High Court of Delhi, granting the appellant the liberty to amend the petition within a stipulated period. The Appellate Tribunal refrained from deciding on the question of maintainability, leaving it to the High Court of Delhi for resolution.This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues addressed in the judgment, providing a detailed understanding of the legal proceedings and decisions involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
