Calcutta High Court held that no injunction can be granted by any civil court in respect of any action taken under section 430 Companies Act, 2013.
The Single Judge Bench of Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Krishna Rao was hearing a Petition and held that Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 itself provides an additional bar by stating that no injunction shall be granted by any civil court in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred on the NCLT by the Companies Act, 2013.
In the present case, the petitioner has filed the suit prior to the appointment of the Liquidator but after the appointment of the Liquidator, the petitioner has filed his claim of Rs.14,47,32,521/- against the respondent before the Liquidator in the form prescribed under the I&B Code, 2016.
The High Court noted that the NCLTs and the NCLATs are constituted under Sections 408 and 410 of the Companies Act, 2013 but without specifically defining the power and functions of the NCLT. Section 408 of the Companies Act states that the Central Government shall constitute a National Company Law Tribunal to exercise and discharge such powers and functions as are or may be conferred on it by or under the Companies Act or any other law for the time being in force. The matters fall within the jurisdiction of the NCLT, under the Companies Act, 2013 lie scattered all over the Companies Act, therefore, Section 420 and 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 indicates in brought terms, merely the procedure to be followed by the NCLT before passing any order. There is no separate provision in the Companies Act exclusively dealing with the jurisdiction and powers of NCLT.
The High Court Bench observed that the petitioner though had filed the civil suit praying for a decree as well as the declaration with respect to the equity shares of the respondent and subsequently, the petitioner has invoked the provisions of Section 7 of IBC which was duly admitted by the NCLT and the petitioner has filed the similar claim before the Liquidator.
Now, the petitioner apprehended that the Liquidator will take control and possession of the shares of the respondent which was in possession of the petitioner and accordingly has filed the instant application but as per the provisions of 60(5) of IBC, 2016, the petitioner can approach the NCLT instead of filing the instant application before the High Court, Bench noted.
High Court noted that Section 238 of the IBC, 2016 is having an overriding effect in any other law for the time being in force. In view of my prima facie findings that the High Court cannot pass any interim order at this stage. The High Court noted that the matter in issue in the suit can be more appropriately and effectively decided and adjudicated by the NCLT.
In the present case, Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 itself provides an additional bar by stating that no injunction shall be granted by any civil court in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred on the NCLT by the Companies Act, 2013.
In view of the above, the High Court found that the petitioner was not entitled to get an ad interim order as prayed for.
Comments