2018 (10) TMI 175 - HC - Companies Law

Court Grants Petitioner Right to Approach Tribunal: Legal Clarity and Access to Justice

The court addressed the petitioner's concerns regarding the lack of a forum due to legislative changes, interpreted relevant provisions, cited legal ... Reference to NCLT - maintainability of the appeal - Held that:- Petitioner approaches the National Company Law Tribunal within 60 days from today, the Tribunal should consider it on its merits and not reject it on the ground that it was preferred beyond the period of 180 days prescribed by the Act (on account of the pendency of these proceedings). We also clarify that if there is any dispute as to the locus standi of the present petitioner (Mahindra Sharma Group) with respect to the maintainability of the appeal, the same would be subject to the contentions of the parties and the decision of the NCLT on its own merits Issues: Lack of forum due to the Sick Industrial Companies (Repeal Act), 2003 and subsequent amendments.Issue 1: Lack of forum projection due to legislative changesThe petitioner expressed concerns regarding the lack of forum projection following the enactment of the Sick Industrial Companies (Repeal Act), 2003 and its subsequent amendments. The petitioner highlighted the impact of these legislative changes on their pending proceedings and the absence of a clear forum for redressal. The court noted the petitioner's reservations and emphasized the need for clarity in addressing the challenges arising from the legislative amendments.Issue 2: Interpretation of legislative provisions and retrospective applicationThe court delved into the interpretation of legislative provisions, particularly the Sick Industrial Companies (Repeal Act), 2003, and its retrospective application. The court analyzed the implications of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 2017, and the addition of Section 4(b) to the Repeal Act. The petitioner sought relief based on the evolving legal landscape, citing precedents such as the order in Twenty First Century Steels Ltd. vs. Union of India. The court examined the complexities arising from the legislative changes and the need for a structured approach to address the petitioner's grievances effectively.Issue 3: Judicial precedents and legal validityThe court referenced previous judgments, including Ashapura Minechem Limited vs. Union of India and ATV Projects (India) Limited vs. Union of India, to provide a legal backdrop to the case. The court highlighted the significance of these precedents in understanding the implications of the legislative changes and their impact on pending proceedings. The court emphasized the need to adhere to legal principles and precedents while determining the course of action for the petitioner.Issue 4: Remedies and forum for redressalIn light of the legal complexities and precedents discussed, the court outlined the available remedies for the petitioner. The court clarified that the petitioner could approach the National Company Law Tribunal within a specified timeframe to seek redressal. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to pursue their case before the Tribunal, ensuring that the petitioner's right to a fair hearing and redressal was preserved despite the legislative changes. The court provided clear directives on the process to be followed by the petitioner to address their grievances effectively.By addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the lack of a forum due to legislative changes, interpreting the relevant legislative provisions, citing legal precedents, and outlining the available remedies, the court provided a comprehensive analysis and resolution to the complex issues at hand. The judgment underscored the importance of legal clarity, adherence to precedents, and ensuring access to justice for the petitioner within the evolving legal framework.