A person has the fundamental right to lodge a complaint or grievance to the court regarding any administrative action. The protection of fundamental rights and the assurance of natural justice are the two most important aspects of writ jurisdictions.
The recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Safire Technologies (Supra) simply expands this explanation to Section 61 of the IBC and discards the contentions that the time period for the limitation shall start running from the date of knowledge of the order.
VIPL sought for a stay on the proceedings before the NCLT on the pretext of pendency of proceeding before the Supreme Court and resultantly, VIPL was unable to realize a substantial sum of Rs. 1730 crores which would enable the Appellant to clear the debt towards Axis Bank.
It was held that the Consumer Complaint of the appellant is not maintainable as the appellant is not a consumer as per section 2(1) d of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Directing the Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the matter, the apex court said that the NCLAT must have notified the bank (Financial Creditor) before closing the CIRP initiated by the NCLT.
Hon’ble Supreme court declared that the provisions of IBC (Code) to be interpreted liberally to expand the objective of the Statute.
The Consumer Protection Act is a wide-ranging provision and it is not a specific resolution like the Insolvency ad Bankruptcy Code and the remedies are simultaneously and mutually exclusive.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated and upheld that legal position of the Flat Buyers Association as consumer and has also made it clear that the builder cannot occupy any place, without the permission of the association, after the project is handed over.
‘Financial Debt’ would have to be construed to include interest free loans advanced to finance the business operations of a corporate body.
NCLAT said that if there was deficiency in pleading, the same could be corrected by giving opportunity before this Appellate Tribunal to amend the pleadings. In Appeal naturally pleadings could be by filing Application and reply supported by documents.
This judgement is a step in the right direction because it recognizes the authority of a non-petitioning creditor to request for a transfer of the winding up proceedings. It assures that A creditor is not deprived of their right just because they didn’t participate in the initial winding up procedure against corporate debtor.
The Supreme Court clarified the code’s object while keeping legislative intent in mind. The court, through this judgement, has struck a balance between creditors’ rights and debtor companies’ remedies.
Since the Limitation Act is applicable to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code from the inception of the Code, Article 137 of the Limitation Act gets attracted. “The right to sue”, therefore, accrues when a default occurs.
The Supreme Court of India issued its first comprehensive ruling on the operation and functioning of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in the case of Innoventive Industries Limited vs ICICI Bank Limited.
Any person aggrieved by the decision of NCLT, or is not satisfied with the decision or if there is any mistake or error on part of NCLT then such a person can appeal NCLAT u/s 61 of IBC for its corrections and proper disposal of judgement/order.
join For Updates