Dismissed

M/S Netplast Private Limited and 21 Others v. Union of India and Another

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2019WRIC/27523/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Sections 53(1)(b) and 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and a request for parity with secured creditors, relying on the Supreme Court's prior affirmation in Swiss Ribbons.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; application for correction in cause title allowed.

M/S Netplast Private Limited and 21 Others Vs… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27523 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Netplast Private Limited And 21 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Saxena,Sri Ravi Kant (Sr. Advocate)

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Sanjay Kumar Om

¶5

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

The application seeking necessary correction in the cause title is allowed. Counsel for the petitioners is permitted to carryout the same.

¶7

Heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

¶8

This petition for writ is preferred with the following prayers:

¶9

" (A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring Section 53(1)(b) and Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 as ultra vires to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

(B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to treat the petitioners at par with the secured creditors and workmen. "

¶11

At the threshold, it would be appropriate to state that validity of the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has already been affirmed and upheld by Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 99 of 2018], decided on 25th January, 2019.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that several contentions which the petitioners want to raise before this Court have not been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

¶13

We are not inclined to entertain any further argument in the matter in view of the well settled law that if validity of a provision has already been affirmed and upheld then it is to be assumed that the Court has examined all possible arguments while scaling the provision concerned and such provision is not open for threshing out again on the count that some of the arguments were not considered earlier. In light of it, the assumption is that the Court has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter and then arrived at a definite conclusion to upheld the validity of the Act of 2016.

¶14

The writ petition for the reasons given is dismissed in terms of the judgment given in the case of Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

¶15

Order Date :- 7.3.2019 VMA

¶16

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)

M/S Netplast Private Limited and 21 Others v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Netplast Private Limited and 21 Others v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Sharma Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Kumari Nootan Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Umesh Garg Vs the Meerut Devep. Authority and Another

Ibarak Hussain @ Ibarat Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secry. Energy and Others

Santosh Sahai Vs Allahabad University Allhabad and 2 Others