Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 66

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA
Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Arvind Kumar Gupta, Ms. Purti Marwaha Gupta, Ms. Henna George, Ms. Eshna Kumar, Ms. V.S. Lakshmi, A. Venayagam Balan, Vishwas Shah, Masoom Shah, Udit Gupta, Pulkit Deora, Anup Jain, Abhishek Baid, For M/s. Udit Kishan And Associates, Keshav Gupta, Ana Bansal, Anil Kumar, Vinod Sharma, Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Ms. Srija Choudhury, Mrinal Harshvardhan, Anupam Lal Das, T. Mahipal, Devanshu Sajlan, Deepak Joshi, Sanyat Lodha, Akash Lamba, Senthil Jagadeesan, M. P. Vinod, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, E. C. Agrawala, Ms. Liz Mathew, Ms. Pallavi Pratap, Advs.
For Respondent(s): Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Vivek Shetty, Jahan Chokshi, Ms. Liz Mathew, Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Eklavya Dwivedi, Navneet R., Raghav Mehrotra, P.V. Dinesh, Ms. Sindhu T.P., Mukund P. Unny, Bineesh K., Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Rajesh Singh, Tushar Mehta, SG Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, B.N. Dubey, Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Indra Bhakar, Santanu Singh, Rajeev Ranjan, Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Rajendra Beniwal, Vishak Thakur, Rakesh Kumar, Rajesh P., D.K. Devesh, Hitesh Vats, V.P. Singh, Abhinav Raghuvanshi, Anupam Prakash, utkarsh Maria, Sahil Monga, For M/s. Karanjawala & Co., Bishwajit Dubey, Spandan Biswal, Manpreet Lamba, Ms. Srideepa Bhattacharyya, Ms. Surabhi Khattar, Prafful Goyal, For M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Anurag Kishore, Anurag Sharma, Mayank Pandey, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mrs. S. Usha Reddy, M/s. Parekh & Co., Mrs. Anil Katiyar, S. S. Shroff, O. P. Gaggar, E. C. Agrawala, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Shantanu Sagar, M/s. D.S.K. Legal, Advs.

JUDGMENT :

R.F. Nariman, J.

1. The present petitions assail the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [“Insolvency Code” or “Code”]. Since we are deciding only questions relating to the constitutional validity of the Code, we are not going into the individual facts of any case.

2. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 99 of 2018, has first and foremost argued that the members of the National Company Law Tribunal [“NCLT”] and certain members of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal [“NCLAT”], apart from the President, have been appointed contrary to this Court’s judgment in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2015) 8 SCC 583 [“Madras Bar Association (III)”], and that therefore, this being so, all orders that are passed by such members, being passed contrary to the judgment of this Court in the aforesaid case, ought to be set aside. In any case, even assuming that the de facto doctrine would apply to save such orders, it is clear that such members ought to be restrained f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 66

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHASwiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

Cases Referred (18)

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA
Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent