Disposed

Hubtown Ltd. Thru Ca Mr. Ali Murtaza v. Union of India Thru Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2019WP/2455/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the maintainability of National Company Law Tribunal proceedings. Court disposed by directing petitioner to raise jurisdiction plea before Tribunal and stay proceedings for 15 days depending on Tribunal's finding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to raise jurisdiction plea before Tribunal; upon objection, Tribunal to decide as preliminary issue; CIRP stay of 15 days if objection is answered against petitioner.

Hubtown Ltd. Thru Ca Mr. Ali Murtaza Vs Union… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

YBG

910-wp-2455-19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2455 OF 2019

¶6

Hubtown Limited .. Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate with Sujay Kantawalla, Sajal Yadav I/b. Anukul D. Seth for petitioner

¶8

Mr. Ashish Mehta with Mohit Sahani, Satnipa Aich for respondent No.1

¶9

Mr. Mihir Thakore, Senior Advocate with Hemant Sethi, Nitin Mehta, Zainab Bharmal I/b. Hemant Sethi for respondent No.2. Ms. R.A.Salunkhe, AGP for State.

¶10

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGARE, JJ. DATE : 9^th APRIL 2019.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

The petitioner is basically challenging the maintainability

¶13

of the proceedings filed by respondent No.2 before National Company Law Tribunal (Tribunal), viz., I.B.No.4128 of 2018, I.B.No.4129 of 2018, I.B.No.4130 of 2018 and I.B.No.4131 of 2018.

¶14

The maintainability is challenged on the ground of jurisdiction.

¶15

2] Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2

YBG

910-wp-2455-19

fairly suggested that the issue regarding the jurisdiction can be decided as a preliminary issue by the Tribunal itself and this Court need not go into the said aspect in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

3] Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner on instructions

¶21

submits that this suggestion is acceptable to the petitioner.

¶22

4] In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of by

¶23

passing following order:-

¶24

(a) The petitioner is at liberty to raise preliminary objection

¶25

regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground of jurisdiction, before the Tribunal;

¶26

(b) In the event, such a preliminary objection/ issue is raised, the Tribunal should decide the same as a preliminary issue before going into the merits of the matter;

YBG

910-wp-2455-19

the petitioner, in that contingency the impugned Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process shall not commence for the period of 15 days, in order to enable the petitioner to approach Higher Authority.

¶32

(d) In the meanwhile, the parties are at liberty explore the possibility of an amicable settlement.

¶33

(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J) (RANJIT MORE, J)

Hubtown Ltd. Thru Ca Mr. Ali Murtaza v. Union of India Thru Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hubtown Ltd. Thru Ca Mr. Ali Murtaza v. Union of India Thru Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Babubhai Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok S/O Pandurang Mahale Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary and Ors.

Rohit Sidram Khatal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dharam Deepak Dayaramani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Salman Imam Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mantosh Rangaiprasad Vishwakarma and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.