High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate; it cannot dictate lower tribunals' proceedings or guide decision-making.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The prayer in this petition, under Articled 227 of the Constitution of India, is essentially to guide the learned National Company Law Tribunal ("the learned NCLT") on how to adjudicate cases pending before it.

2. Such a prayer, in my view, is completely untenable in law and an attempt at even countenancing such a prayer would amount to serious judicial overreach.

3. The proceedings emanate from a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), instituted by the Standard Chartered Singapore (SCS) before the learned NCLT. It appears that, on the basis of transactions covered by invoices issued between 28th September 2018 and 6th January 2019, SCS contended that the petitioner owed, to it, an amount of Rs.22 crores. In view of the alleged default of the petitioner in liquidating the said debt, SCS apparently invoked the provisions of the IBC.

4. The petitioner has sought to contend, before the learned NCLT, that the documents cited by SCS in its support could not be relied upon in view of Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899¹

5. IA 1408/2022 was filed by the petitioner, highlighting the staid objection. The application exhorted the learned NCLT to examine the aforesaid documents in terms of Section 33(1) and 33(2) of the Stamp Act and to rule, even at that interlocutory stage, that, as the documents were not stamped in terms of Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, they could not be relied upon.

6. The objection was rejected by the learned NCLT vide order dated 21st April 2022. The learned NCLT opined that, in view of Section 238 of the IBC² , which had, according to the petitioner, overriding effect over the provisions of the Stamp Act, the prayer of the petitioner was not sustainable.

7. The petitioner appealed against the said decision of the learned NCLT before the learned National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("the NCLAT").

8. The appeal was disposed of, by the learned NCLAT vide order dated 5th May 2022, which reads thus:

"05.05.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned Counsel for the Respondent.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Special Bench, Court-III in I.A-1408 of 2022 which was filed by the Appellant. I.A was filed by the Appellant when proceedings in IB-2688/(ND)/2019 were part heard and the Court was proceeded to hear the parties.

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the issues which were sought to be raised by the Appellant in IA-1408 of 2022 has already been submitted by the Respondent before the Court during the course of the submission. It is submitted that there was no necessity to file Application which was only filed to delay the proceedings.

4. In view of the facts as noted above, we are of the view that the order of rejection passed by the Adjudicating Authority on the Application need no interference in this Appeal. We, however, make it clear that any observations made by the Adjudicating Authority while rejecting the Application I.A-1408 of 2022 have no bearing when the issues are decided by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law and merits. All contentions of both the parties are left open.

5. With these observations, the Appeal is dismissed."

9. The petitioner is thus back before the learned NCLT.

10. The petitioner's grievance is that the learned NCLT is ignoring Sections 33 and 35 of the Stamp Act, in proceeding with the matter. The said provisions were to be t