1. Appeal concerning the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's authority to allow a compromise under the I&B Rules, 2016. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1741
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.
LOKHANDWALA KATARIA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellants
VERSUS
NISUS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT MANAGERS LLP - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9279 OF 2017
Decided On : 24-07-2017
Important Points
The court's utilization of its inherent power and powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to allow a compromise between the parties after admission of the matter.
Subject
Civil Law - Company Law
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.142
I&B APPLICATION TO ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY RULES: R.8
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES: R.11
I&B APPLICATION TO ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY RULES: R.8
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES: R.11
Headnote
Inherent Power - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal - The court utilized its inherent power to allow a compromise between the parties after admission of the matter, despite the view that the inherent power could not be so utilized under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016.
Fact of the Case:
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal considered whether it could utilize its inherent power to allow a compromise between the parties after admission of the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court utilized its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to put a quietus to the matter before it, by taking the Consent Terms entered into between the parties on record and recording the appellant's undertaking to abide by the Consent Terms.
Issues: The issue was whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal could utilize its inherent power to allow a compromise after admission of the matter, in view of Rule 8 of the I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 and Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by its interpretation of Rule 8 of the I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 and Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, and its exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The present appeal was disposed of, and nothing further survived in the appeal.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, can be utilized to allow a compromise after admission of a matter. (Para 2 )
3. The court observed that inherent powers cannot be utilized to allow a compromise in view of Rule 8 of the I&B Rules, 2016. (Para 3 )
4. Inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, are unavailable to allow a compromise given the restrictions of Rule 8 of the I&B Rules, 2016. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal disposed of by recording consent terms and undertakings through the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Can the NCLAT use its inherent powers under Rule 11 to allow a compromise after a matter is admitted?
No, the court held that in view of Rule 8 of the I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal cannot utilize its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 to allow a compromise. (Para 2 , 3 )
7. Under what authority did the court settle the matter despite the NCLAT's lack of inherent power to allow the compromise?
The court utilized its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to record the consent terms and undertakings of the parties to put a quietus to the matter. (Para 4 )
ORDER :
1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The present appeal raises an interesting question as to whether, in view of Rule 8 of the I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal could utilize the inherent power recognized by Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 to allow a compromise before it by the parties after admission of the matter.
3. By the impugned order dated 13.07.2017, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal was of the view that the inherent power could not be so utilized. According to us, prima facie this appears to be the correct position in law.
4. However, since all the parties are before us today, we utilize our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to put a quietus to the matter before us. We take the Consent Terms dated 28.06.2017 and 12.07.2017 entered into between the parties on record and also record the undertaking of the appellant before us to abide by the Consent Terms in toto. The appellant also undertakes to pay the sums due on or before the dates mentioned in the aforesaid Consent Terms.
5. With this, the present appeal is disposed of.
6. In view of our order made today, nothing further survives in the aforesaid appeal.
