TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el for the petitioner argues that, by an order dated June 19, 2019, a photocopy of which has been handed over on behalf of the opposite party itself, the matter was fixed for further consideration on August 14, 2019 but only seven days was granted to the financial creditor to file rejoinder. However, the rejoinder was filed much thereafter. The corporate debtor, by the same order dated June 19, 2019, was granted time to file a reply within seven days as well. 4. In the impugned order, no reason was assigned as to why the belated rejoinder of the financial creditor was allowed to be filed as late as on August 14, 2019 but, in the same breath, the leave sought by the corporate debtor to file its supplementary affidavit was refused on the ground that no valid reasons were submitted. 5. This, according to the petitioner, exhibited a lack of impartial attitude on the part of the tribunal. It is argued that the cardinal rule of fair play was absent in such refusal on the part of the tribunal. 6. Learned senior counsel for the opposite party/financial creditor argues at the outset that an appeal lay under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereafter referr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) shall have jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of, inter alia, any question of priorities or any question of law or facts, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor or corporate person under this court. The present impugned order, it is argued, is a question of fact arising out of and in relation to an insolvency resolution and, as such, is covered by Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC, thus, bringing the said order within the fold of the appellable orders contemplated in Section 61(1) of the IBC. 12. In reply, learned senior counsel for the petitioner argues that Rule 55 of the NCLT Rules are not applicable to insolvency resolution proceedings under the IBC. By placing reliance on Rule 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the IBC Rules"), learned senior counsel argues that the specific rules of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which are applicable to IBC Proceedings, have been referred to there. Neither in Rule 10 nor in any other Rule of the IBC Rules, does Rule 55 of the NCLT Rules find mention. As such, Rule 55 is not applicable at all to the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ering the legality and jurisdictional error of the impugned order even if there was a bar in the IBC, which does not provide an alternative remedy available before civil courts in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. Upon hearing both sides, an examination of the scope of Section 61(1) of the IBC, as regards appellability of orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority, is to be undertaken first. 16. It is seen from Section 61(1) that the language used is, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act, 2013, any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under that Part (Part II) may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. 17. However, in contrast, the very next Section, that is, Section 62 of the IBC provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court against "an order" of the NCLT to the Supreme Court, thereby creating an explicit distinction between the language of the two successive sections between the appeal preferable against the order of an Adjudicating Authority and that of the NCLT. 18. Seen in such context, it cannot be presumed that the legislature carved out such a distinct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Authority to pass orders. 22. The present impugned order not being such an order, no appeal lies under Section 61(1) of the IBC. 23. The use of the indefinite article "an" to qualify appellable orders in Section 62 and the definite article "the" in Section 61 (1) of the IBC reflects the intention of the Legislature and cannot be construed to be redundant. Such intention of the Legislature has to be attributed a meaning and cannot be ignored while construing the statute. 24. The judgment cited on behalf of the petitioner is besides the point, inasmuch as the said judgment lays down a distinction between alternative remedies of civil nature and other alternative remedies, which does not take away from the sanctity of the alternative remedy in any manner. 25. Even the judgment cited on behalf of the opposite party does not lay down the proposition that an alternative remedy is an absolute bar for a High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well‐settled since long that, although there is no absolute bar if alternative remedies are available, if such remedies are equally efficacious, the High Court e....