1. PIL regarding Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Review of High Court order — Subsequent proceedings before NCLAT. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1804
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
Srei Equipment Finance Limited – Appellant
Versus
Kalpataru Properties Private Limited & Ors. - Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2536 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) Dy. No. 1158 of 2023) With Civil Appeal No. 385 of 2023
Decided on : 27-01-2023
Important Points
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned orders, holding that since the appellant's independent appeal is pending before the NCLAT, the tribunal should decide the matter on its own merits, where the respondents may raise all available defenses, including the plea of limitation.
Subject
Civil Law - Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Special Leave Petition dismissed - Delay in filing petition was condoned but issues regarding mis-disclosure of facts arose. The Court refrained from intervening, emphasizing that it's for the appellate forum, NCLAT, to adjudicate on merits. (Paras 4, 6)
(B) Review Application - Observations made in the previous Division Bench order did not necessitate interference without addressing the merits of the ongoing litigation. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a Special Leave Petition against an order related to a review application in a case that emerged from a prior Public Interest Litigation dismissed in a High Court, involving multiple parties and pending appeals in NCLAT.
Findings of Court:
The Court noted that the merits of the case should be evaluated by NCLAT without interference at this juncture, as the litigants may exercise all defenses available to them, including limitation.
Issues: The main issues pertain to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition regarding a review application and the rights of the parties involved in subsequent appeals before the NCLAT.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the principle that the appellate forums are to evaluate cases on their merits, rejecting the need for intervention in procedural disputes brought before it.
Result: Both the Special Leave Petition and the Civil Appeal are dismissed.
(B) Review Application - Observations made in the previous Division Bench order did not necessitate interference without addressing the merits of the ongoing litigation. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a Special Leave Petition against an order related to a review application in a case that emerged from a prior Public Interest Litigation dismissed in a High Court, involving multiple parties and pending appeals in NCLAT.
Findings of Court:
The Court noted that the merits of the case should be evaluated by NCLAT without interference at this juncture, as the litigants may exercise all defenses available to them, including limitation.
Issues: The main issues pertain to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition regarding a review application and the rights of the parties involved in subsequent appeals before the NCLAT.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the principle that the appellate forums are to evaluate cases on their merits, rejecting the need for intervention in procedural disputes brought before it.
Result: Both the Special Leave Petition and the Civil Appeal are dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr. Ativ Patel, Adv., Ms. Priyanka Vora, Adv., Mr. Siddhant Buxy, AOR, Mr. Krishna Sumanth, Adv., Mr. Darshit Dave, Adv., Mr. Sivagnanam K, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv., Mr. C. Rashmikant, Adv., Mr. Sunil Mittal, Adv., Ms. Anu Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Arshit Anand, Adv., Ms. Geetika Sharma, Adv., Ms. Mishika Bajpai, Adv., Ms. Namrata Shah, Adv., Ms. Nidhi Malhotra, Adv., Mr. Praveen Dhage, Adv. Mr. Kyus Modi, Adv., Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Adv., Mr. Shamant Satiya, Adv., Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr. Ativ Patel, Adv., Ms. Priyanka Vora, Adv., Mr. Siddhant Buxy, AOR, Mr. Krishna Sumanth, Adv., Mr. Darshit Dave, Adv., Mr. Sivagnanam K, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv., Mr. C. Rashmikant, Adv., Mr. Sunil Mittal, Adv., Ms. Anu Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Arshit Anand, Adv., Ms. Geetika Sharma, Adv., Ms. Mishika Bajpai, Adv., Ms. Namrata Shah, Adv., Ms. Nidhi Malhotra, Adv., Mr. Praveen Dhage, Adv. Mr. Kyus Modi, Adv., Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Adv., Mr. Shamant Satiya, Adv., Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Mis-disclosure of facts for condonation of delay — Right to withdraw appeal before NCLAT. (Para 4 , 6 )
3. Matters pending before NCLAT should be decided on merits by that forum, where all defenses, including limitation, remain available. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Where a substantive appeal is pending before a specialized tribunal, the court will not interfere if the tribunal can decide the matter on merits. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Special Leave Petition and Civil Appeal dismissed. (Para 5 , 7 )
6. Whether the Supreme Court will interfere in a matter where a substantive appeal is already pending before the NCLAT?
The court is not inclined to interfere when a substantive appeal is pending before the NCLAT, as the tribunal is the appropriate forum to decide the matter on its own merits. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. Does the withdrawal of one appeal before the NCLAT preclude the examination of an independent appeal by another party?
No, if a party has an independent appeal pending before the NCLAT, that appeal can be examined on its own merits regardless of the withdrawal of another appeal. (Para 6 )
8. Can a plea of limitation be raised before the NCLAT in a pending appeal?
Yes, the court observed that parties before the NCLAT would have all available defenses, specifically including the plea of limitation. (Para 5 , 6 )
ORDER :
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.2536 /2023 (@ SLP (C) DIARY No. 1158 of 2023)
1. Delay condoned.
2. An endeavour made by one Sri Subhankar Bhowmik through a PIL filed in the High Court of Tripura at Agartala seeking to raise issues about the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was dismissed by an order dated 14.3.2022 and against the same the SLP was dismissed on 11.4.2022. Respondent No.1 thereafter filed a petition with leave to appeal against the original order of Division Bench alleging that they were not parties in those proceedings and some observations have been made in paras 13 to 15 of that order which affected the pending litigation relating to respondent No.1. In that context, it was observed that if that was so, it was for the petitioner to approach the High Court to seek appropriate relief and the SLP was dismissed with that liberty. Thereafter a review application was filed by respondent No. 1 which has been decided by the impugned order dated 21.9.2022 making certain observations in that context of the pending litigation of respondent no. 1 and clarifying the position.
3. The present SLP is directed against that order filed in January, 2023 and it may be noticed that considerable litigation relating to the matter pending before the NCLAT arose which has not resulted in a favourable order by the NCLAT for the petitioner after orders were passed by this Court for the NCLAT to take a call on the issue whether the appeal filed by Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. could be permitted to be withdrawn.
4. In the aforesaid context, it has been contended on behalf of the respondent that the matter should be thrown out at the threshold on account of mis-disclosure of facts for seeking condonation of delay, albeit of a short period. What has been sought to be pointed out is that the ignorance expressed about the order passed in the review petition is false as it was well known to the appellant in view of the proceedings in the appeal before the NCLAT, inter alia, as recorded in the order dated 22.8.2022 in presence of their counsel.
5. Be that as it may, on hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the oblique endeavour of the petitioner through the present proceeding as it is their say that their own appeal is pending before the NCLAT. We are of the view that it will be for the NCLAT to take a call on its own merit in the appeal filed by the petitioner and respondent No.1 - M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. would have equally all defences available including the plea of limitation. SLP is accordingly dismissed.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 385 OF 2023
6. We are not inclined to entertain this appeal in the background of the facts and circumstances in which the impugned order has been passed after remit from this Court about the right of respondent No.1 to withdraw the appeal before the NCLAT which has been so permitted to be withdrawn. The appellant claims that they have an independent appeal pending. If that be so, it is for the NCLAT to examine the appeal of the appellant on its own merits equally the respondent Nos.1 and 2 will have all defences available including the plea of limitation.
7. The appeal stands dismissed.
