Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rcc Infraventures Limited vs Union Bank Of India And Another on 8 January, 2024
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
SUNIL
CWP No.28528 of 2023 (O&M) -1-
2024:PHHC:0003092-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.28528 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.01.2024
RCC INFRAVENTURES LIMITED ----__lan... Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ____....... Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present: Ms. Amrita Panda, Advocate (through video conferencing) and
Mr. Sumit Puri, Advocate
for petitioner.
3K KK
LISA GILL, J.
1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition for setting aside order
dated 11.10.2023, passed by learned National Company Law Tribunal,
Chandigarh (for short NCLT, Chandigarh) to the extent that petition filed by
respondent-Bank seems to be prima-facie within limitation as well as order
dated 28.11.2023, whereby on application filed by petitioner under Rule 11
of National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (for short NCLT Rules,
2016), it is observed that issue already prima-facie stands decided vide order
dated 11.10.2023 and petitioner has been directed to file its reply within two
weeks.
2. It is pleaded in the writ petition that respondent-Bank filed a
petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for
short IBC, 2016) before learned NCLT, Chandigarh seeking initiation of
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against petitioner in
August, 2023 with purported date of default by petitioner being mentioned
as 29.02.2020. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that
respondent actively undertook steps against petitioner under provisions of
2024.01.11 10:54
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
SUNIL
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002, in an illegal manner during which orders passed
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Writ Petition C
No.3/2020 were enforced. It was contended that detailed arguments were
addressed before learned NCLT, Chandigarh on 11.10.2023 to the effect that
petition was barred by limitation and should be dismissed in limine.
However, in an arbitrary manner without rendering conclusive decision in
this regard, learned NCLT, Chandigarh while observing that petition prima-
facie seemed to be within limitation in view of judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the above mentioned Suo Moto Writ Petition C
No.3/2020, directed reply to be filed by petitioner within three weeks and
adjourned the matter for 28.11.2023.
3. Petitioner, thereafter filed application under Rule 11 of NCLT
Rules, 2016, however, vide order dated 28.11.2023 learned NCLIT,
Chandigarh instead of conclusively deciding question of maintainability on
the ground of limitation, observed that issue is already prima-facie decided
vide order dated 11.10.2023 and proceeded to direct petitioner to file its
reply within two weeks with the same being last opportunity. Learned
counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that present is a case involving a
jurisdictional issue itself because in case petition is barred by limitation,
exercise of jurisdiction by NCLT, Chandigarh is clearly illegal. Learned
counsel for petitioner referred to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Arun Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others (2007) 1 SCC 732,
with reference to what constitutes a jurisdictional fact. Learned counsel also
refers to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd.
Vs. Assistant Commissioner (AA) and another, (2009) 14 SCC 338 and
Universal Sompo General General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Suresh
2024.01.11 10:54
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
SUNIL
Chand Jain and another, 2023 SCC Online SC 877, to submit that present
writ petition should be entertained by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Question raised in this writ
petition, it was urged, goes to root of the matter, therefore, remedy of appeal
under IBC, 2016, is not an efficacious remedy available to petitioner. It is
thus prayed that this writ petition be allowed.
4. We heard learned counsel for petitioner at length and perused
the file with her assistance. There can be no exception to delineation of
what constitutes a jurisdictional fact as has been held by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Arun Kumar's case (supra). However in the given factual
matrix where petitioner undeniably has an efficacious remedy for
challenging said orders in terms of Section 61 IBC, 2016, we do not find any
ground for interference in this writ petition challenging orders dated
11.10.2023 and 28.11.2023, passed by learned NCLT, Chandigarh.
5. It is not the case of petitioner that learned NCLT does not have
jurisdiction to decide question of limitation, which is admittedly a mixed
question of law and fact. In case there has been any incorrect disposition by
learned NCLT, realm of consideration thereof is with the appellate Forum
duly provided under IBC, 2016. We do not find any exceptional
circumstance, which calls for intervention by this Court, at this stage. The
question whether impugned orders have been passed correctly or otherwise
by learned NCLI, Chandigarh, are clearly within the domain of
consideration by the authority provided in the statute. Judgment of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in Godrej Sara Lee's case (supra) wherein Hon'ble the
Supreme Court was seized of the issue as to whether notification in question
could have retrospective effect or retroactive operation, does not come to aid
of petitioner in the given factual matrix. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble the
2024.01.11 10:54
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Supreme Court in Universal Sompo's case (supra), is of no avail to
petitioner in the given facts. In our considered opinion, it is not a pure
question of law or such jurisdictional issue which calls for bypassing the
statutory remedy available to petitioner.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, this writ
petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to avail remedy(ies) available
to it, in accordance with law for redressal of grievance(s) as raised in this
writ petition.
(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
(AMARJOT BHATTI)
08.01.2024 JUDGE
Sunil
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
SUNIL
2024.01.11 10:54
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
