2022 (10) TMI 48 - SC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Supreme Court clarifies NCLAT's jurisdiction on retained appeals post-set aside main proceedings.

The Supreme Court addressed jurisdictional issues regarding the NCLAT's retention of an appeal despite the main proceedings being set aside. The Court ... Seeking leave to withdraw the appeal - appellant contends that the NCLAT does not have jurisdiction to keep the appeal pending at this stage when the main proceedings before the NCLT from which appeal arose before NCLAT has been set aside by this Court - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to entertain the applications filed by the intervenors before this Court since in any event they have filed applications before the NCLAT and if the prayer of the appellant to withdraw his appeal is allowed, the said intervenors in any event will have to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Considering the fact that the last order in the appeal before NCLAT is 15.04.2019 and sufficient time has elapsed, the NCLAT is requested to dispose of the application pending before it seeking withdrawal of the appeal, as expeditiously as possible within a period of six weeks from this date. Appeal disposed off. Issues:1. Jurisdiction of NCLAT to retain appeal despite main proceedings being set aside by the Supreme Court.2. Entertaining applications by intervenors before the Supreme Court.3. Timely disposal of application seeking withdrawal of appeal by NCLAT.Analysis:1. The appellant challenged interim orders in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.107 of 2019 before the NCLAT. The Supreme Court noted that the NCLAT was retaining the appeal despite the main proceedings being set aside by the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the NCLAT lacked jurisdiction at this stage. The Supreme Court acknowledged the contention but deemed the appeal premature as the NCLAT had not yet decided the application to withdraw the appeal. The Court directed the NCLAT to determine if the NCLT proceedings had concluded due to the Supreme Court's order before taking further action.2. The Supreme Court also addressed applications by intervenors, stating that such applications should be pursued before the NCLAT. If the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal was granted, the intervenors would need to seek remedies as per the law. The Court declined to entertain the intervenors' applications at that stage.3. Emphasizing the need for timely resolution, the Supreme Court urged the NCLAT to promptly dispose of the application seeking withdrawal of the appeal within six weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court highlighted that a considerable amount of time had passed since the last order in the appeal before the NCLAT, underscoring the importance of expeditious resolution. The Supreme Court concluded the judgment with these directives, disposing of the appeals based on the outlined observations.