2022 (11) TMI 1283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Heard Mr. Seervai, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel for the respondent-bank. 3. By this Writ Petition the Petitioner is seeking direction against the National Company Law Tribunal, Bench Mumbai (for short "NCLT") to decide the pending Interlocutory Application raising the issue of jurisdiction by virtue of Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred as "the IBC") before proceeding to enter upon the merits of the Company Petition No.1191 of 2021. 4. The brief facts of the case are as under:- The petitioner is a company, it is in the business of slum rehabilitation ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....being an application under Section 7 of the IBC.  This was premised on the petitioner's position as guarantor under Guarantee-1 and Guarantee-2. The company petition specifically set out the date of invocation of Guarantee-1 and Guarantee-2 to being 7th August, 2020 and 26th June, 2020 respectively. The petitioner filed an interlocutory application seeking dismissal of the company petition on the ground of Section 10A of IBC but the NCLT after hearing on interlocutory application has indicated that it would proceed to hear the matter on merit before rendering a finding on jurisdiction. Against it, this writ petition. 5. It is the contention of Mr.Seervai, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that NCLT has gravely erred in se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In that case, as per the settled principle of law, a case has to be decided on all issues. He relied on the following decisions: (1) S.K. Gupta and anr. Versus K. P. Jain and anr. (1979) 3 SCC 54; (2) Islamic Academy of Education and anr. Versus State of Karnataka and ors. (2003) 6 SCC 697; (3) M/s. Amar Nath Om Prakash and ors. Versus State of Punjab and ors. (1985) 1 SCC 345; (4) Sathyanath and anr. Versus Sarojamani (2022) 7 SCC 644; (5) Maharashi Dayanand University versus Anand Coop. L/C. Society Ltd. and anr. (2007) 5 SCC 295; (6) Krishna Kumar Birla versus Rajendra Singh Lodha and ors. (2008) 4 SCC 300. 7. We have heard both learned Senior Counsel. Admittedly the Petitioner h....