2023 (4) TMI 780 - SC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Supreme Court rejects SLP, emphasizes High Court route for Insolvency cases

SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED Versus KALPATARU PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed in the High Court. The Special ... Mis-disclosure of facts for seeking condonation of delay - HELD THAT:- What has been sought to be pointed out is that the ignorance expressed about the order passed in the review petition is false as it was well known to the appellant in view of the proceedings in the appeal before the NCLAT, inter alia, as recorded in the order dated 22.8.2022 in presence of their counsel - we are not inclined to interfere with the oblique endeavour of the petitioner through the present proceeding as it is their say that their own appeal is pending before the NCLAT. Appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Dismissal of PIL regarding Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by High Court.2. Review application filed by Respondent No. 1.3. Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the order of the review application.4. Litigation before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).5. Mis-disclosure of facts for seeking condonation of delay.6. Civil Appeal regarding the right to withdraw an appeal before NCLAT.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses the dismissal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the High Court regarding the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Supreme Court notes that the SLP against the dismissal was also rejected, leading to a subsequent petition by Respondent No.1 seeking leave to appeal against the original order due to its impact on their pending litigation. The Court emphasizes that any relief in this regard should be sought from the High Court, ultimately dismissing the SLP with liberty for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.2. A review application was subsequently filed by Respondent No. 1, leading to an order dated 21.9.2022 clarifying certain observations made in the context of the pending litigation. The Supreme Court acknowledges the review application and the clarifications provided in the impugned order, highlighting the significance of these developments in the ongoing legal proceedings.3. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed in January 2023 challenges the aforementioned order, emphasizing the considerable litigation concerning the matter pending before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Despite the petitioner's contention that their appeal is pending before the NCLAT, the Court decides not to interfere, stating that the NCLAT should independently assess the merits of the appeal, allowing all parties to present their defenses, including the plea of limitation.4. The judgment also delves into the complex litigation before the NCLAT, noting that previous orders from the Supreme Court did not result in a favorable outcome for the petitioner. The Court reiterates that it is the NCLAT's prerogative to evaluate the appeal filed by the petitioner and emphasizes that all parties involved will have the opportunity to present their defenses, including Respondent No.1 - M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.5. The issue of mis-disclosure of facts for seeking condonation of delay is raised during the proceedings. The respondent argues that the matter should be dismissed due to the alleged false ignorance expressed by the appellant regarding the order passed in the review petition. However, after hearing arguments from both sides, the Court decides not to intervene, allowing the NCLAT to assess the appeal's merits independently.6. In the context of Civil Appeal No. 385 of 2023, the Court declines to entertain the appeal following the remit from the Supreme Court regarding the right of Respondent No.1 to withdraw the appeal before the NCLAT. The appellant's claim of having an independent appeal pending is noted, with the Court emphasizing that the NCLAT should evaluate all appeals on their individual merits, ensuring that all parties have the opportunity to present their defenses, including the plea of limitation. The appeal is consequently dismissed.