Kerala HC: Revisional Power U/S 263 Not Invocable When AO Grants Sec 32AC Deduction After Inquiry  ||  J&K&L HC: Section 359 BNSS Doesn’t Limit High Court’s Inherent Power U/S 528 to Quash FIRs  ||  Bombay HC: BMC Ban on Footpath Cooking via Gas/Grill Doesn’t Apply to Vendors Using Induction  ||  Madras HC: Buyer Not Liable for Seller’s Tax Default; Purchase Tax Can’t Be Imposed under TNGST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Oral Allegations Alone Insufficient to Sustain Bribery Charges Against Ministers  ||  Delhi HC: CCI Cannot Levy Interest Retrospectively Before Valid Service of Demand Notice  ||  Delhi HC: VC Rules Don’t Shield PMLA Accused From Physically Appearing Before ED in Probe  ||  SC: If Complaint Reveals Cognizable Offence, Magistrate May Order FIR Registration U/S .156(3) CrPC  ||  SC: Private Buses Can’t Operate on Inter-State Routes Overlapping Notified State Transport Routes  ||  Delhi HC: Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Provisional Attachment When PMLA Remedy Exists    

E.S. Krishnamurthy and Ors. vs. Bharath Hi Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd. - (Supreme Court) (14 Dec 2021)

Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority under IBC cannot compel a party to the proceedings before it to settle a dispute

MANU/SC/1249/2021

Insolvency

In present matter, on a petition which was instituted by the Appellants under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of the Respondent, the NCLT declined to admit the petition and instead directed the Respondent to settle the claims within three months. The NCLAT found no merit in the appeal against the NCLT’s order.

The Adjudicating Authority has clearly acted outside the terms of its jurisdiction under Section 7(5) of the IBC. The Adjudicating Authority is empowered only to verify whether a default has occurred or if a default has not occurred. Based upon its decision, the Adjudicating Authority must then either admit or reject an application respectively. These are the only two courses of action which are open to the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with Section 7(5). The Adjudicating Authority cannot compel a party to the proceedings before it to settle a dispute.

The IBC is a complete code in itself. The Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority are creatures of the statute. Their jurisdiction is statutorily conferred. The statute which confers jurisdiction also structures, channelises and circumscribes the ambit of such jurisdiction. Thus, while the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority can encourage settlements, they cannot direct them by acting as courts of equity.

The order of the Adjudicating Authority, and the directions which eventually came to be issued, suffered from an abdication of jurisdiction. Plainly, the Adjudicating Authority failed to exercise the jurisdiction which was entrusted to it. A clear case for the exercise of jurisdiction in appeal was thus made out, which the Appellate Authority then failed to exercise. The impugned judgment and order of the NCLAT is set aside. The petition under Section 7 of the IBC is accordingly restored to the NCLT for disposal afresh. Appeal allowed.

Tags : DISPUTE   SETTLEMENT   DIRECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved