The High Court cannot interfere with the decisions of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution, as matters under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are governed by a self-contained statutory framework.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

21.06.2024:

The Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 370/2022, was adjudicated finally on merits by the Judgement rendered by this Appellate Tribunal on 19.10.2022. At the stage, when the final adjudication was made in the company appeal, which was emanating from the Judgement of 21.07.2022, which was rendered by NCLT, Hyderabad in CP(IB)150/9/HDB/2019, at that stage, this Tribunal was exercising its appellate power vested in it under Section 61 of I & B Code, 2016. It goes without saying that the I & B Code itself is a self-contained statute and is mandatory in nature too.Question which would ultimately emerge for consideration is as to whether any party aggrieved by the Judgment of this Tribunal, by overriding the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Apex Court under Section 62 of I & B Code, can invoke a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and furthermore whether the writ courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the , under an equitable jurisdiction can condone delay and remit the Appeal back to this Appellate Tribunal to be decided afresh, by overriding the impact of limitation which is statutorily prescribed under special statute and condoning the delay beyond the ambit of I & B Code of 2016 and by directing to revive the proceedings under I & B Code of 2016, to be decided afresh on merits, thus taking / assuming jurisdiction over this Appellate Tribunal. The statute in all its wisdom has conferred the Appellate jurisdiction to this Tribunal, as against the Judgements which are rendered by the National Company Law Tribunals, as constituted under law. Accordingly, any person aggrieved by the order of NCLT may prefer an appeal to this Tribunal under Section 61 (1) of I & B Code, 2016. Similarly, anybody being aggrieved against the Judgment orders of this Appellate Tribunal could redress their grievances before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing an Appeal before it on a question of law arising out of such order under Section 62 (1) of the said code. From this it is quite clear that this Tribunal, namely National Company Law Appellate Tribunal is a forum created under law to exercise Appellate Jurisdiction in matters coming under I & B Code, 2016.

This matter, as it is listed today, is listed for consideration of a Restoration Application (AT) (CH) No.02/2024. This itself engages consideration of a very peculiar circumstances, in the legal arena, which should not have chanced, being a very embarrassing situation for this Tribunal is being forced to make certain observations which under the judicial propriety and discipline should have been best avoided to be made.

This company appeal stood adjudicated by this Tribunal vide its Judgement dated 19.10.2022 on merits and as already observed, the appropriate legal recourse which was available to the appellant would have been to invoke the jurisdiction under section 62 of I & B Code, 2016, before the Hon’ble Apex Court. But for the reasons best known, the appellant had chosen to approach the Hon’ble High Court of State of Telangana, by filing a Writ Petition being WP No. 14133/2023 M/s. Johnsons Lifts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. From the Judgement, which was rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in this case, it appears as if the High Court was exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , as reflected from the Judgement itself as passed by it.

This situation presents an occasion for this Tribunal to deal with the issue, as to what would be the implications in application of Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India while challenging the orders passed by this Tribunal created under Companies Act. The Hon’ble High Court of Telangana had passed the following Judgement: -

“ WRIT PETITION No.14133 OF 2023

ORDER:

“Heard Sri V.Murali Manohar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respon