Transition to insolvency forum allows Tribunal access with limitation protection and leaves locus standi open for decision.

Following the repeal of the sick industrial companies regime and the transition to the insolvency framework, the Delhi HC noted that grievances capable of examination by the National Company Law Tribunal should ordinarily be pursued before that forum. Because the writ proceedings had delayed the petitioner's recourse, the Court protected the approach to the Tribunal against rejection on limitation and permitted filing within 60 days. It also left the objection to locus standi open for determination by the Tribunal on its own merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, in view of the repeal of the sick industrial companies regime and the pendency of the writ proceedings, should be permitted to approach the National Company Law Tribunal and be protected against rejection on limitation, and whether the question of locus standi would remain open before that forum.

Analysis: The dispute arose out of the statutory transition from the repealed sick industrial companies framework to the insolvency regime under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, including the effect of Section 4(b) of the Repeal Act and the Removal of Difficulties Order. Relying on earlier decisions dealing with the same transition, the Court proceeded on the basis that where the grievance is one that can be examined by the National Company Law Tribunal, the proper course is to permit the party to move that forum rather than treat the writ remedy as the only avenue. The Court also considered that the pendency of the present proceedings had delayed recourse to the Tribunal, and therefore fairness required protection against rejection on the ground of expiry of the 180-day period. At the same time, any objection to the petitioner's locus standi was left to be decided by the Tribunal on its own merits.

Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to approach the National Company Law Tribunal within 60 days, and the Tribunal was directed not to reject the matter on limitation merely because of the pendency of these proceedings; the question of locus standi was left open for decision by the Tribunal.

---