Jurisdictional thresholds in insolvency proceedings must adhere to the legal framework at the time of the default, and not be hindered by subsequent legislative changes.

ORDER

Per: RADHAKRISHNA SREEPADA, Member (Technical)

1. The Company Petition is filed on 21.07.2025 with following prayers a) allow the present application by dismissing the company petition in T.P.(IBC) No.05/2024 on the grounds that it is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction under section 4 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as a preliminary issue; and, b) Pass any such necessary or further orders as may be fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity, including an order as to costs of this company application

2. Facts of the case & Submissions of the Petitioner The present application is filed on 21.07.2025 under Rule 11 of the NCLT, 2016, seeking disposal of the Petition in TP(IBC) no.05/ 2024 in CP no 21/2014 on preliminary issue of maintainability. It is stated that the Petition does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

a) It is submitted that the submissions made in the Statement of Objections to the main Petition are repeated, reiterated, maintained, and adopted by the Applicants.

b) In the interest of brevity, it is submitted that the above T.P (IBC)No.05/2024 Petition is not maintainable before this Tribunal, as the debt claimed by Schenker to be owed by LAPP is only Rs.15,74,546/-, which falls below the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs.1 Crore of this Tribunal.

c) It is submitted that though this case arises out of a Company Petition for winding up transferred by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka to this Tribunal, as per the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 (as amended in 2017), all such transferred petitions are required to be dealt with in accordance with Part II of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , even though they may have originally been filed as petitions for winding up under Section 4 33(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 before a High Court. Part II of the IBC commences from , which reads as follows:

Section 4 . Application of this Part.

This Part shall apply to matters relating to the insolvency and liquidation of corporate debtors where the minimum amount of the default is one crore rupees….

Therefore, the Applicant submits that though this Petition has been transferred by the Hon’ble High Court, it is liable to be dismissed as it falls below the pecuniary threshold prescribed for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Tribunal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 .

d) This position is supported by the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Nitesh Residency v. The Archdiocese , ILR 2022 KAR 201, which reads as follows:

47. As pointed out by Amicus Curiae, in case of transfer, Rule5 (1) 2 of the Transfer Rules, 2016 and the proviso to Rule 5(1) would require that other information is to be furnished by the petitioner as may be required for admission of the petition under Rules 7, 8 or 9 of IBC. This needs to be kept in mind which if considered along with the observations at para-27 of NAVIN CHANDRA’S case would establish that the claim in the winding up petition must be the one that could be considered under the IBC.

48. The pecuniary limit in terms of the claim is also an aspect that needs to be kept in mind as pointed out by the Amicus Curiae, the pecuniary threshold in terms of the claim under the IBC was rupees one lakh as mandated under Section 4 of IBC which has subsequently been enhanced to rupees one crore as per the Notification dated 24.03.2020 by the Central Government. This aspect of pecuniary threshold bar is also a relevant factor that ought to be kept in mind while considering the transfer petitions. (emphasis supplied)

Therefore, since this Petition would not be admitted to CIRP under Sections 7, 8, or 9 of the IBC for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, the Applicant submits that it is liable to be dismissed in limine.

e) Further, in the context of transferred petitions, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Forech (India) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2019) 18 SCC 549 , has held that the objective of t