TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court declines writ jurisdiction for debt recovery when NCLT proceedings already pending for same dues</h1> The Delhi HC dismissed an appeal where the petitioner sought recovery of outstanding dues through Article 226 jurisdiction. The court held that since ... Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India for recovery of outstanding dues - proceedings in respect of the same are already pending consideration before the NCLT - HELD THAT:- The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition holding that it was not open for the Petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India for recovery of outstanding dues, as the proceedings in respect of the same are already pending consideration before the NCLT. It has not been disputed, that the issue of remittance of outstanding dues from the Department of Post is currently pending before the NCLT. Further, notice already stands issued to Department of Posts in respect of the application moved qua the dues. As such, we fail to understand the reasons holding back the Appellant from campaigning its cause before the NCLT - no fault can be found in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There are no reason for this Court to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction at this stage to parallelly consider the question of realisation of the NRRA in-question. That apart, the issue of remittance of outstanding dues by the Department of Posts is interconnected to the allegations of violation of Section 37(3) of the Act. Given the former is yet to be decided by NCLT, the allegations of violation of the Act not delved upon. There is no merit in the present appeal - Appeal dismissed. Issues:The judgment involves issues related to delay in filing the appeal, dismissal of a writ petition seeking remittance of outstanding dues from the Department of Post, and violation of Section 37 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.Delay in Filing Appeal:The application for delay in filing the appeal was allowed and the delay was condoned, leading to the disposal of the matter.Dismissal of Writ Petition for Remittance of Dues:The appeal was directed against the judgment dismissing the writ petition seeking remittance of outstanding dues owed by the Department of Post to a company undergoing liquidation. The writ petition was declined by the learned Single Judge as the issue was pending consideration before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).Violation of Section 37 of the Indian Post Office Act:The writ petition contended a violation of Section 37 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, regarding undelivered postal articles. The Appellant sought remittance of outstanding dues and directions against the Department of Posts. The Court held that since the matter was already pending before the NCLT for recovery of the amount, the Petitioner could not approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that the issue of remittance of dues was interconnected with the NCLT proceedings and declined to interfere in the matter.Separate Judgment by the Judges:The judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula. The appeal was dismissed, and the Court found no merit in the arguments presented by the Appellants. The Court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge and concluded that the High Court should not intervene in the ongoing NCLT proceedings regarding the remittance of outstanding dues from the Department of Post.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
