SC junks PIL to declare that NCLT cannot act as appellate authority – The Economic Times

Clipped from: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/sc-junks-pil-to-declare-that-nclt-cannot-act-as-appellate-authority/articleshow/84703358.cmsSynopsis

“It is not necessary for this court to return any finding on the question sought to be raised in the abstract without any live challenge to an order of the adjudicating authority. In any event there are appellate remedies available under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to an aggrieved party. The petition is dismissed,” the bench said.

The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a PIL seeking to declare that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) cannot act as an appellate authority to the decisions of the top court and find flaws so as to circumvent the “rule of law” laid down.

A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah said the petition is clearly not maintainable and there is no reason to entertain the petition under Article 32.

“It is not necessary for this court to return any finding on the question sought to be raised in the abstract without any live challenge to an order of the adjudicating authority. In any event there are appellate remedies available under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to an aggrieved party. The petition is dismissed,” the bench said.

The apex court was hearing a PIL filed by one Ashok Surana seeking to declare that the NCLT cannot act as an appellate authority to the decisions of this court and find flaws so as to circumvent the “rule of law” laid down.

The plea also sought directions that the “rule of law” laid down by the top court is binding on the authorities below without any conditions and cannot be sidelined or overruled.

“Declare that the rule of constructive res judicata (matter decided) applies to the decisions of this court and is a fundamental rule which sustains the rule of law in ensuring finality to litigation,” the plea said.

Surana submitted that the NCLT has misinterpreted the judgments of this court and, hence, the invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 32 is sought to be justified.

He also clarified that he is not a party to any of the proceedings before the adjudicating authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s