Case Law Details
Sunil Tandon Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court)
Conclusion: Writ petition was not maintainable on account of the alternative statutory remedies available to assessee before NCLT/ NCLAT .
Held: Assessee approached High Court on the ground that under the proviso to Section 241(2), it was only the Principal Bench of NCLT at Delhi which could entertain the petition preferred by 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 only issue which this Court need to determine was as to whether in the light of assessee’s plea that the proceedings before the NCLT, Mumbai Bench were without jurisdiction having been filed before a Bench whose jurisdiction had been specifically ousted by the proviso to Section 241(2), the writ petition ought to be entertained or assessee ought to be relegated to the NCLT/ NCLAT. It was held that the Companies Act was a complete code in itself, as also that the NCLT and NCLAT were specialized Tribunals created by the statute for dealing with issues arising under the Companies Act. The conflicting stand taken by the parties would depend only on the interpretation of the proviso to Section 241(2) and thus, it was evident that assessee was ultimately seeking to urge that a provision of the Companies Act was required to be read in a particular manner. This aspect, could be and ought to be considered by the forums of NCLT/ NCLAT created under the Companies Act for dealing with issues arising under the said Act. Therefore, after noticing that an efficacious alternate remedy was available to assessee by approaching the NCLT and NCLAT created under the Companies Act, declined to entertain the writ petition.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
