Company fails to appeal NCLT order within 45-day limit under IB Code Section 61, loses money laundering stay

The Rajasthan HC vacated a stay order in a money laundering case involving NCLT jurisdiction. The court found that the petitioner was aware of NCLT Mumbai proceedings but failed to appeal within the statutory 45-day period under IB Code Section 61. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of natural justice violation, noting the petitioner deliberately chose not to intervene in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The HC dismissed the stay application and allowed respondents' application under Article 226(3), directing the petitioner to address jurisdictional issues regarding the writ petition challenging NCLT's vacation of ED attachment orders.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The judgment primarily addresses the following core legal questions:

• Whether the Rajasthan High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the order of the NCLT, Mumbai.
• Whether the NCLT, Mumbai had the jurisdiction to vacate the attachment orders issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the PMLA, 2002.
• Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.
• Whether the stay order dated 06.07.2023 should be vacated considering the alleged violation of principles of natural justice and the subsequent developments in related legal proceedings.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Territorial Jurisdiction

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Article 227 of the Constitution of India grants the High Court superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted the preliminary objection regarding the lack of territorial jurisdiction as the NCLT, Mumbai falls outside the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court.
• Conclusions: The court allowed the petitioner to file an appropriate application to address the jurisdictional issue.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of NCLT to Vacate Attachment Orders

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 238 of the IB Code, 2016, and Section 71 of the PMLA, 2002.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court refrained from making a determination on this issue at this stage, noting that it pertains to the merits of the writ petition.
• Conclusions: The issue will be considered during the final hearing of the writ petition.

Issue 3: Maintainability of the Writ Petition

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the IB Code, 2016.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the petitioner did not avail the statutory remedy of appeal within the prescribed period, which raises questions about the maintainability of the writ petition.
• Conclusions: The delay in filing the writ petition and failure to pursue the statutory remedy undermines the petitioner's case.

Issue 4: Vacation of Stay Order

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Principles of natural justice and precedents regarding interim reliefs.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court examined the factual matrix, including the petitioner's awareness of the NCLT proceedings and the subsequent dismissal of a related writ petition by the Bombay High Court.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the petitioner was aware of the NCLT proceedings and had not disclosed this during the initial stay order application.
• Conclusions: The stay order dated 06.07.2023 was vacated due to lack of a prima facie case and the petitioner's failure to disclose material facts.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes: "The petitioner cannot take resort of the violation of principles of natural justice and cannot plead unawareness to the proceedings before the NCLT, Mumbai and the order dated 24.02.2022 passed therein."
• Core Principles Established: The importance of pursuing statutory remedies within prescribed timelines and the necessity of full disclosure when seeking interim reliefs.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The stay order was vacated, and the court directed the petitioner to address the jurisdictional issue and consider converting the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The court's decision emphasizes the procedural requirements and jurisdictional boundaries that litigants must navigate when challenging tribunal orders, particularly in the context of insolvency and money laundering proceedings.

---