1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that an application under section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was preferred by the respondent PSL Limited to participate in the hearing of the application on January 22, 2018.
2. The adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad) [‘NCLT’ for short] has reserved the order on the application No. Inv. P.1/2018 with C.P. (I.B.) No. 37/10/NCLT/AHM/2017. The counsel submits that in case the order passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram: A.S. Gadkari, J.) dated July 19, 2017, which was recalled by the impugned order is not restored, the appellant would be prejudiced as the issue of vital importance on law which the appellant has sought to raise before the Court would get frustrated and would become infructuous.
3. He submitted that the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has not dealt with the specific submissions made in respect of the jurisdiction of the Company Court and the NCLT. The counsel has drawn our attention to the specific observations made by the learned Single Judge (Corum: K.R. Shriram, J.) while delivering the impugned order on January 5, 2018 in which the order passed by the learned Single Judge (Corum: A.S. Gadkari, J.) was recalled. The learned Single Judge (Corum: A.S. Gadkari, J.) on July 19, 2017 passed following order:—
“1. Circulation is granted for 26.07.2017. To be placed high on board.
2. In the meantime the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad is directed not to proceed further with CP (IB) No. 37 of 2017.”
4. The counsel appearing for the respondents by referring to various provisions of the Companies Act and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 submits that under the scheme, the applicant, like the respondent or any other litigant can approach the NCLT and there is no bar for the NCLT to entertain such petition pending the Company Petition in which notices are issued.
5. The counsel further submits that the Company Court has no jurisdiction to restrain the NCLT from entertaining the application. The Company Court jurisdiction after the enactment of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a transitional forum and in that light the powers of the Company Court and the NCLT needs to be considered. In case the NCLT is restrained from passing orders, there will be adverse effect on the moratarium process which will not be in the interest of the respondents.
6. The appeal was circulated today along with the notice of motion for grant of interim relief. We have heard both the learned counsel quite at length. We find that both the learned counsel have raised certain issues which require detailed consideration of the submissions advanced regarding the interpretation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the Companies Act, the objects and the purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the powers of the Company Court. It was submitted that it is required to be seen whether harmonius construction of both the Acts to reconcile the jurisdiction of two forums the Company Court and NCLT could be adopted.
7. We find that the order dated July 19, 2017 was in operation since July 2017 till the learned Single Judge (Coram: K.R. Shriram, J.) recalled the same by the impugned order passed on January 5, 2018.
8. By an ad-interim order, we stay the impugned order dated January 5, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge recalling the order passed on July 19, 2017 in Company Application (L) No. 333 of 2017 in Company Petition No. 434 of 2015 till the next date.
9. Stand over to February 22, 2018 at 3.00 p.m.