The Delhi High Court ruled that the writ petition in High Court is not maintainable as Statutory Alternative Remedy is available at National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
The only basis for the petitioner, Sunil Tandon to approach the High Court was that under the proviso to Section 241(2), it is only the Principal Bench of NCLT at Delhi which could entertain the petition preferred by the Central Government and therefore, the very filing of the petition before the NCLT, Mumbai Bench and the passing of any order by the said Bench being coram non Judice, was a nullity. The petitioner has, however, not denied the fact that two company appeals assailing the very same impugned order passed by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, filed by aggrieved parties forming part of the same group are already pending adjudication before the NCLAT.
There is also no denial that the Companies Act is a complete code in itself, as also that the NCLT and NCLAT are specialized Tribunals created by the statute for dealing with issues arising under the Companies Act. The petitioner’s primary plea before this Court is that in view of the proviso to Section 241(2) of the Companies Act, the NCLT, Mumbai did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition and therefore, the proceedings before it and all orders passed by the said Bench are a nullity. The respondents have vehemently denied this position and have contended that only the Mumbai Bench had the necessary jurisdiction. The conflicting stands taken by the parties will depend only on the interpretation of the proviso to Section 241(2) and thus, it is evident that the petitioner is ultimately seeking to urge that a provision of the Companies Act is required to be read in a particular manner.
The single-judge bench of Justice Rekha Palli held that the present petition is not maintainable on account of the alternative statutory remedies available to the petitioner and not for want of territorial jurisdiction, did not deem it necessary to delve into the aspect.
“The writ petition, along with the pending application, is dismissed. Needless to observe that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s challenge to the impugned orders and letter and therefore, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all grounds raised in the present petition either before the NCLT or NCLAT, which he may choose to approach,” the court said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
