Case Law Details
P.X. Xavier Vs. K. Joseph (Kerala High Court)
Admittedly, the Liquidator had taken a decision. The decision taken by the liquidator is appealable under Section 42 of the Code. The petitioners, in order to file appeal under Section 42 of the Code, filed an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It has been submitted that the said delay condonation petition had been already allowed by the Tribunal. Now, the petitioners have to file appeal as provided under Section 42 of the Code.
Since there is provision for appeal and the petitioners had already decided to resort to the said provision by filing application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, it is not just and proper for this Court to pass any order exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly when so many appeals in this connection are pending consideration by the Tribunal. Since so many appeals are pending before the Tribunal relating to the issue involved in this case, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of all the appeals, including the appeals to be filed by the petitioners in this case, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties. Till the appeals are disposed of, no amount shall be disbursed to the creditors. However, this judgment will not stand in the way of the Liquidator in effecting the sale of the property in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The first prayer in this Original Petition is to set aside Ext.P7 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal ordering liquidation of the company under Section 33(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, ‘the Code’). The petitioner also sought for a direction to the first respondent not to proceed with the liquidation without giving the claims of workmen.
2. Service is not complete on all the respondents. However, since this Court has decided not to pass any order on merits, there is no need to serve notice on the unserved respondents.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent.
4. Ext. P7 is admittedly appealable under Section 61 of the Code. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have presently no grievance with regard to Ext.P7 order passed by the Tribunal ordering liquidation of the company. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the decision taken by the Liquidator regarding the claims of the petitioners is not correct and hence a direction is to be issued to the Liquidator to take a decision afresh after hearing the parties and considering the documents produced by the parties.
5. Admittedly, the Liquidator had taken a decision. The decision taken by the liquidator is appealable under Section 42 of the Code. The petitioners, in order to file appeal under Section 42 of the Code, filed an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It has been submitted that the said delay condonation petition had been already allowed by the Tribunal. Now, the petitioners have to file appeal as provided under Section 42 of the Code.
6. Since there is provision for appeal and the petitioners had already decided to resort to the said provision by filing application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, it is not just and proper for this Court to pass any order exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly when so many appeals in this connection are pending consideration by the Tribunal. Since so many appeals are pending before the Tribunal relating to the issue involved in this case, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of all the appeals, including the appeals to be filed by the petitioners in this case, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties. Till the appeals are disposed of, no amount shall be disbursed to the creditors. However, this judgment will not stand in the way of the Liquidator in effecting the sale of the property in accordance with law.
This O.P.(C) stands disposed of as above.
