Company appeal dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction under new threshold rules

The Tribunal dismissed the Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.243/2021 due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, affirming the Adjudicating Authority's decision. The application was filed after the threshold increase, making it non-maintainable as the claimed amount was below the new threshold of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- set by the Notification. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to current law and clarified that changes in law are procedural, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Pecuniary Jurisdiction
2. Notification Applicability (Prospective vs. Retrospective)
3. Principles of Natural Justice
4. Date of Default vs. Date of Application

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Pecuniary Jurisdiction:
The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the petition due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, as the claimed amount was Rs. 17,91,112/-, which is below the threshold limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- set by the Notification dated 24.03.2020. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the application was filed after the threshold increase, making it non-maintainable.

2. Notification Applicability (Prospective vs. Retrospective):
The Appellant argued that the Notification dated 24.03.2020 should apply prospectively, meaning defaults before this date should adhere to the previous threshold of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Tribunal, referencing its own judgment in Madhusudan Tantia Vs Amit Chauraria and Another, concluded that the Notification is prospective and does not apply to pending applications filed before its issuance. However, since the application was filed after the Notification, the new threshold limit applies.

3. Principles of Natural Justice:
The Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority violated principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity to present its case and not referring to judicial precedents. The Tribunal did not find merit in this argument, focusing instead on the adherence to the updated pecuniary jurisdiction requirements.

4. Date of Default vs. Date of Application:
The Respondent argued that the relevant date for determining the applicability of the threshold limit is the date of filing the application, not the date of default. The Tribunal agreed, stating that Section 4 of the I&B Code, which sets the minimum threshold, applies as it stood on the application date. The Tribunal also referenced the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in Ramesh Kymal V. Siemens Ganesa Renewable Power Pvt Ltd, which clarified that the initiation date is when the application is made, not the default date.

Appraisal:
The Tribunal noted that the Appellant's application was filed on 12.03.2021, after the Notification date, and the claimed amount was below the Rs. 1,00,00,000/- threshold. Therefore, the application was not maintainable due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized that a litigant must adhere to the current law, and changes in law are procedural.

Result:
The Tribunal dismissed the Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.243/2021 due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, affirming the Adjudicating Authority's decision. No costs were awarded.

---