Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (2.13 seconds)
Arun Mathews Philip vs National Company Law Tribunal on 12 September, 2025 cites

Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons Private ... vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction ... on 13 April, 2021

3. Petitioner would submit that it is true that an appeal is provided against Ext.P6 order before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "NCLAT"), but the availability of an alternate remedy itself will not bar the jurisdiction of this Court in proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in as much as the petitioner has raised a question of jurisdiction of the NCLT to entertain Ext.P1 company petition and to issue Ext.P6 order since going by IB Code, 2016, DRT is the adjudicating authority. Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657 and Embassy Property Developments Private Limited v. State of Karnataka and others, (2020) 13 SCC 308 and contended W.P(C) Nos.14220 of 2024 and 29578, 29909, 29918 & 29945 of 2025 16 2025:KER:67928 that an alternate remedy will not be a reason for not exercising jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the issue relates to enforcement of the fundamental right, violation of the principles of natural justice, the proceedings challenged are without jurisdiction or in cases where the validity of a statute is challenged. Based on the judgments cited supra it is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the proceedings have been challenged for the reason that NCLT has no jurisdiction to entertain such a petition and to issue an order in the nature of Ext.P6, the writ petition is perfectly maintainable before this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 110 - Cited by 360 - B R Gavai - Full Document

M/S Embassy Property Developments Pvt. ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2019

Yet another aspect to be noted in these cases is that Ext.P1 company petition was filed as early as in 2023, the petitioner entered appearance and filed Ext.P2 counter affidavit and in Ext.P2 counter affidavit, the only objection raised is regarding the plea of limitation in initiating the proceedings and the present contention raised in this writ W.P(C) Nos.14220 of 2024 and 29578, 29909, 29918 & 29945 of 2025 39 2025:KER:67928 petition was never raised before the NCLT. Further, Ext.P4 preliminary order was passed by the Tribunal on 22.03.2024, whereby a resolution professional was appointed. Though the said order was challenged in W.P.(C) No.14220 of 2024, the only contention raised in the said writ petition was regarding the plea of limitation and the competency of the NCLT in considering the company petition was not taken up as a ground. Further, no interim order was granted by this Court in W.P.(C) No.14220 of 2024. Now, only when Ext.P6 order was issued on 08.07.2025, almost two years after the filing of the company petition, that the plea of lack of jurisdiction of the NCLT in entertaining the company petition was first raised. I am of the view that there is delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in bringing to the notice of the Tribunal or this Court regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the NCLT in entertaining Ext.P1. Further, I have already held that the NCLT has jurisdiction to entertain an application for insolvency proceedings against the personal guarantor of a corporate debtor. I am of the view that Ext.P1 company petition filed before the NCLT is perfectly maintainable and the NCLT has jurisdiction to entertain the matter since in the judgements of the Apex Court relied on by the petitioners including Embassy Property Developments's case cited supra, it is held that only when there is total inherent lack of jurisdiction to entertain W.P(C) Nos.14220 of 2024 and 29578, 29909, 29918 & 29945 of 2025 40 2025:KER:67928 an application the writ petition could be maintained, bypassing the statutory appeal provided as per the statute. Since I have already found that the NCLT has jurisdiction to entertain Ext.P1 company petition, I am of the view that the petitioners should be relegated to avail the alternate remedy available to them as provided in Section 60(1) of the IB Code, 2016 before the NCLAT. Leaving open such right of the petitioners to challenge the impugned order in appropriate proceedings, these writ petitions are dismissed. The period during which the writ petitions were pending consideration before this Court should be excluded while computing the limitation period for preferring appeal against the orders impugned in these writ petitions before the NCLAT.
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 322 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document
1   2 Next