TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eard together with the consent of the parties and a common order is being passed in all the Revision Petitions. 2. Facts in C.R.P.No.3278 of 2017 are as follows:- a. The Revision Petitioner approached the respondent, to supply Facility Security Solution Products. Supply terms were finalised and verbal requests for supply of Facility Security Solution Products were made by the Revision Petition. The products were supplied by the respondent, under various invoices, under a running account. Supply of the material is duly acknowledged, by the petitioner, but the amounts have not been paid. Hence, notice, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, for recovery of Rs. 30,99,237/-, with interest, at the rate of 10%, was issued to the Revision Petitioner. b. Since the amount was not paid despite notice, a petition, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was filed by the respondent against the petitioner, for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai. The National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai, passed an order, dated 2/8/2017, and the operative portion ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& Meadows, for which Electrification was executed by the petitioner herein. Work orders were issued. Petitioner herein submitted a bill of Rs. 8,97,665/-, which was not honoured. b. A petition for winding up has been filed under the Companies Act, 1956, against the petitioner. On the advent of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, winding up petition got transferred, to the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai. A memo, dated 11/7/2017, was filed by the operation creditor. By an order, dated 7/6/2017, petitioner herein was directed to serve a copy of the petition, along with the documents relied upon to the respondent. On 21/6/2017, time was extended till 11/7/2017. Documents were not served, as provided, under Section 9 (3) (b) & (c) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Since the petitioner did not comply with the directions of the National Company Law Tribunal, the National Law Tribunal vide order, dated 11/7/2017, rejected the petition as under:- "Mr.R.T.Arivukumar, counsel for petitioner present. As seen from the orders dated 7/6/2017 and 21/6/2017 of this Bench, direction was given in both the orders to the petitioner to make compliance with the provisions of Section 9 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er stands abated." d. Being aggrieved, M/s. Satheeshlim Engineering Industries, has filed instant C.R.P.No.4029 of 2017. 5. Facts in C.R.P.No.4065 of 2017 are as follows:- a. AKMG Alloys Private Limited/petitioner had filed a winding up petition, under Section 433 (e) and (f) r/w. 434 (1) (a) and 435 (1) and (b) of the Companies Act, 1956, against the respondent, contending that the respondent is a customer of the petitioner and had been purchasing steel ingots from the petitioner Company, on regular basis, since May, 2012. It is stated in the winding up petition that a sum of Rs. 1,16,64,783/-, as due and payable and that the respondent Company is unable to pay its debts. The matter was transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal. By an order, dated 10/7/2017, the National Company Law Tribunal, adjourned the matter to 26/7/2017. b. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has not filed the affidavit and bank statement, vide, order, dated 26/7/2017, the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai, passed the following order:- "Counsel representing both the parties are present. Counsel for respondent pointed out that the mandatory requirements of IB Code, 2016 has not b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal against a liquidation order passed under section 33 may be filed on grounds of material irregularity or fraud committed in relation to such a liquidation order." 7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken away just because an alternate remedy is available. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of SURYA DEV RAI Vs. RAM CHANDER RAI AND OTHERS {2003 (6) SCC 675}, wherein at paragraph Nos.38 and 39, it has been observed as under:- "38. Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusions in a nutshell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder:- (1) Amendment by Act No.46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002 in Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. (2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the CPC Amendment Act No. 46 of 1999 are ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis. (emphasis supplied). (8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. (9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in Ind....