Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Section 60 of IBC in Gloster Ltd vs Gloster Cables Ltd on 22 January, 2026Matching Fragments
24. The application of GCL was under Section 60(5) of the IBC. Section 60(5) reads as under: -
60. Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons.— (5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the National Company Law Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of—
(a) any application or proceeding by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person;
(b) any claim made by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person, including claims by or against any of its subsidiaries situated in India; and
“55. A textual comparison of the provisions of Section 60(5) of IBC with Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 would reveal some similarities of expression, with textual variations. For the purposes of the present proceedings, it suffices to note that clause (c) of Section 60(5) confers jurisdiction on NCLT to entertain or dispose of “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 the Code”. Section 446(2)(d) of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 280(d) of the Companies Act, 2013 use the expression any question of priorities or any other question whatsoever whether of law or fact. These words bear a striking resemblance to the provisions of Section 60(5)(c) of IBC. But textually similar language in different enactments has to be construed in the context and scheme of the statute in which the words appear. The meaning and content attributed to statutory language in one enactment cannot in all circumstances be transplanted into a distinct, if not, alien soil. For, it is trite law that the words of a statute have to be construed in a manner which would give them a sensible meaning which accords with the overall scheme of the statute, the context in which the words are used and the purpose of the underlying provision. Therefore, while construing of Section 60(5), a starting point for the analysis must be to decipher parliamentary intent based on the object underlying the enactment of IBC…….
71. In the present case, PPA was terminated solely on the ground of insolvency, since the event of default contemplated under Article 9.2.1(e) was the commencement of insolvency proceedings against the corporate debtor. In the absence of the insolvency of the corporate debtor, there would be no ground to terminate PPA. The termination is not on a ground independent of the insolvency. The present dispute solely arises out of and relates to the insolvency of the corporate debtor.
91. The residuary jurisdiction of NCLT under Section 60(5)(c) of IBC provides it a wide discretion to adjudicate questions of law or fact arising from or in relation to the insolvency resolution proceedings. If the jurisdiction of NCLT were to be confined to actions prohibited by Section 14 of IBC, there would have been no requirement for the legislature to enact Section 60(5)(c) of IBC. Section 60(5)(c) would be rendered otiose if Section 14 is held to be exhaustive of the grounds of judicial intervention contemplated under IBC in matters of preserving the value of the corporate debtor and its status as a “going concern”. We hasten to add that our finding on the validity of the exercise of residuary power by NCLT is premised on the facts of this case. We are not laying down a general principle on the contours of the exercise of residuary power by NCLT. However, it is pertinent to mention that NCLT cannot exercise its jurisdiction over matters dehors the insolvency proceedings since such matters would fall outside the realm of IBC. Any other interpretation of Section 60(5)(c) would be in contradiction of the holding of this Court in Satish Kumar Gupta [Essar Steel (India) Ltd. (CoC) v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 443] .
173. Although various provisions of IBC indicate that the objective of the statute is to ensure that the corporate debtor remains a “going concern”, there must be a specific textual hook for NCLT to exercise its jurisdiction. NCLT cannot derive its powers from the “spirit” or “object” of IBC. Section 60(5)(c) of IBC vests NCLT with wide powers since it can entertain and dispose of any question of fact or law arising out or in relation to the insolvency resolution process. We hasten to add, however, that NCLT's residuary jurisdiction, though wide, is nonetheless defined by the text of IBC. Specifically, NCLT cannot do what IBC consciously did not provide it the power to do.