Bombay High Court
Pushpa Shah (Shareholder And Promoter ... vs Union Of India And 2 Ors on 6 February, 2019
Author: Bharati H. Dangre
Bench: Ranjit More, Bharati H. Dangre
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION Ld. NO. 352 OF 2019
Pushpa Shah. ..Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and Others. ..Respondents.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate with Dr. Sujay Kantawala, Mis.
Misha Rohatgi, Mr. Nooruddin Dhilla, Mr. Shashang Trivedi, Mr. Zaid
Wahidi, Mr. Zubin Naryalwala I/b M/s. Hariani & Co., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Aditya Thakkar, Mr. Ashish Mehta, Ms. Asma Kopeka I/b Ashish
Mehta for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate with Mr Ashish Kamat, Mr
Vivek Shetty, Mr. O. Nevgi, Ms. Anushka Shah I/b AZB & Partners for
Respondent No. 2.
Coram : RANJIT MORE &
SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
Date : February 6, 2019.
P. C. :
1. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the respective parties. The Petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of section 231 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The Petitioner has also assailed the maintainability of proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal [for short, "the NCLT"], viz., Transfer Petition No. 919/I&BC/ NCLT/ MB/ MAH/ 2017. This challenge is based on the ground that the NCLT has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings of Respondent No.2 against Respondent No.3. In this patilsr 1/ 2 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 07:36:17 ::: regard, it is the case of the Petitioner that in the year 2016 Respondent No. 3 had filed the proceedings under section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013 before this Court which has been transferred to NCLT later on. It is further case of the Petitioner that Respondent No.2 has relied on the default of 2012 of Respondent No. 3, which is time barred whereas the proceedings under section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013 were filed in this Court in the year 2016. Apart from this point, other points were also pressed into service.
2. Mr. Dhond, the learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 2 challenges the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the Petitioner has appellate remedy. Mr. Dhond, however seeks some time to file return. We grant the request of Mr. Dhond and defer the hearing on this petition. Adjourned to 4 th March 2019. High on board.
[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] patilsr 2/ 2 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 07:36:17 :::