Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear Companies Act case pending at High Court

The Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to grant leave under Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013, for a case already pending under the Companies Act, 1956, at the High Court of Bombay, Goa Bench. The petitioner was instructed to seek necessary leave from the High Court, leading to the disposal of the matter accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of NCLT to grant leave under Section 279 of Companies Act, 2013.
2. Validity and relevance of the contract dated 28.11.2011 in relation to the suit filed in 2008.
3. Requirement of leave under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 to continue the suit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of NCLT to Grant Leave Under Section 279 of Companies Act, 2013:
The primary issue addressed was whether the NCLT has jurisdiction to grant leave under Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013, when a winding-up petition is already filed at the High Court of Bombay, Goa Bench, and an Official Liquidator is appointed. The Tribunal noted that the winding-up process, including the appointment of the Official Liquidator, was initiated by the High Court of Bombay, Goa Bench. According to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs Notification dated 07.12.2016, petitions under clauses (a) and (f) of Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, pending before a High Court, should be transferred to the NCLT only if the petition has not been served on the respondent. Since this condition was not met, the NCLT concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant leave, directing the petitioner to seek leave from the High Court of Bombay, Goa Bench.

2. Validity and Relevance of the Contract Dated 28.11.2011:
The Tribunal observed a discrepancy regarding the contract date. The petitioner claimed to have filed a suit in 2008 based on a contract dated 28.11.2006. However, the only contract presented was an unregistered agreement dated 28.11.2011. This discrepancy raised questions about the basis for the 2008 suit. Despite this, the Tribunal focused on the jurisdictional issue, noting that the contract's validity and relevance were secondary to the jurisdictional determination.

3. Requirement of Leave Under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956:
The Liquidator contended that under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner needed leave from the High Court of Bombay, Goa Bench, to continue the suit. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that since the winding-up order and the appointment of the Official Liquidator were under the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner should have sought leave from the High Court. The Tribunal reiterated that it did not have jurisdiction to grant leave for proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to grant leave under Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013, for a matter pending under the Companies Act, 1956, at the High Court of Bombay, Goa Bench. The petitioner was directed to seek appropriate leave from the High Court. The matter was disposed of accordingly.

---