Law Tribunal and others)

Jabalpur, Dated : 05.07.2021 Shri Himanshu Khemuka, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard finally through Video Conferencing.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner whereby an order dated 18.03.2021 has been impugned. The said order has been passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Indore Bench at Ahmedabad.

The office has taken an objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction as the respondent No.1/National Company Law Tribunal is situated at Ahmedabad and outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

Today this case has been fixed to decide the question whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. This Court is not going in depth into the merits of the case, but however, it is necessary to give a brief background on the factual aspects of the case.

The petitioner is a Private Limited Company having its registered office at Bhopal. It is engaged in the business of constructing roads, commercial and non-commercial buildings, houses for the poor and executes works for the Government. The petitioner Company is a sub-contractor for M/s GVR Infra Projects Limited and it entered into a contract on 11.10.2018 with the said Law Tribunal and others)

company for rehabilitation and upgradation of Sindoor River to the start of Bareli Bypass section of NH-12.

The respondent No.2 moved an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the respondent No.1/Tribunal. On 25.02.2021 after hearing the parties, the case was reserved for orders and thereafter on 18.03.2021, the impugned order was passed where there was a conflict of opinion seen between the learned Judicial Member and the Technical Member.

While passing the impugned order, the two Members Bench of the Tribunal is stated to have erred both on facts as well as on law because it did not formulate the point or points of difference of opinion and point or points on which difference of opinion arose which were never communicated to the petitioner on account of which, grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner. This Court had given time to the learned counsel for the petitioner to address it on the question of territorial jurisdiction as the orders have been passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Indore Bench at Ahmedabad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the National Company Law Tribunal at Indore would have had the jurisdiction ordinarily in this case, had it been functioning. He has orally referred to a notification of the Central Government dated Law Tribunal and others)

31.01.2020 being F.A.-45011-44-2018 by which the jurisdiction of the NCLT, Indore was transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal at Ahmedabad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued with much vehemence that mere situs of the Tribunal would not divest this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the present petition, as according to him, the cause of action as arisen at Madhya Pradesh and merely because the Tribunal is situated at Ahmedabad, it cannot be said that this Court has no jurisdiction.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to several judgments. The first judgment he has referred to is [Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another], (2004) 6 SCC 254 The brief background of the case before the Supreme Court would be essential to appreciate the ratio laid down by it. In that case, Kusum Ingots, which was the appellant/Company before the Supreme Court, had its registered Office at Mumbai. It obtained a loan from the Bhopal Branch of the State Bank of India and a notice was issued for repayment of the said loan from Bhopal, in terms of the provision of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 {hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”}. The vires of the said Act was questioned before the Delhi High Court which was dismissed on the ground of lack of Law Tribunal and ot