View: The curious case of insolvency battle over Rasna
Summary
Chitranshul Sinha, Partner at Dua Associates, a law firm, decodes the insolvency battle over Rasna (the summer drink) as this ‘extraordinary’ battle pitches a high court against NCLT, by way of conflicting orders.
On an application filed by a company that provided transportation services to Rasna Pvt. Ltd, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad passed an order directing the commencement of insolvency proceedings against Rasna. This may not have been an event of note, in usual course, but it came under the limelight owing to the fact that most of us growing up, or even now, enjoyed Rasna’s products which became a brand name eponym for summer beverages in India.
Now, as per provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (IBC) Rasna had a right to appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which it duly did. Before the appeal could be heard, Rasna received a communication from the Resolution Professional appointed to take charge of the company asking it to not operate its bank accounts etc. While this is a routine correspondence, Rasna approached the Gujarat High Court by filing a writ petition asking for a stay on the NCLT order, even though it had already filed an appeal in NCLAT and presumably would have sought a stay of the NCLT order in its appeal as well.
Extraordinarily, the high court passed an order granting interim relief staying the NCLT order till the time NCLAT heard the statutory appeal. I use the term ‘extraordinarily’ because high courts are reluctant to interfere with judicial orders where another forum has statutory jurisdiction to sit in appeal. It is a self-imposed judicial restriction even though Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution grant High Courts very wide powers to issue appropriate orders, with Article 227 specifically granting the power to quash judicial orders from subordinate courts within a high court’s territorial jurisdiction.
This is not the first time that a high court has interfered with orders of NCLT passed under IBC. In another high-profile case, the Karnataka High Court in 2019 stayed similar insolvency proceedings initiated against Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. despite an alternate remedy of appeal under IBC having been available to it. The stay was issued as Flipkart had raised issues related to the jurisdiction of the NCLT in the case, and subsequently, it had filed and succeeded in appeal before NCLAT. Coincidentally, both cases had been filed by operational creditors (vendors) against the companies and not by lenders.
Some statutes, like the ones pertaining to debt recovery and enforcement of securities by banks and financial institutions, specifically bar the jurisdiction of civil courts. In that regard, even the Supreme Court of India has consistently held that high courts should desist from entertaining writ petitions challenging such recovery or enforcement actions as the relevant statutes bar intervention of other courts and there exists a hierarchy of tribunals and courts to to take care of aggrieved parties. However, despite there being a similar bar against civil courts from exercising jurisdiction under IBC, there is no judgment from the Supreme Court restraining high courts from exercising their writ jurisdiction.
Arguably, and as the law on this aspect is not settled yet, high courts can exercise writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against NCLT orders if an issue of jurisdiction to pass such orders under IBC is raised by an aggrieved party before a high court. If an aggrieved person is able to demonstrate perversity in any order by NCLT then a high court may interfere in the interest of justice. Even in Rasna’s case, the interim stay order was passed to protect it till the company was able to get a hearing before the NCLAT.
Secondly, while NCLAT is the statutory Appellate Tribunal under IBC, it has not been granted supervisory powers over NCLTs. Occasions may arise where the NCLT may deviate from, or act contrary to, the procedure laid down under IBC. In such cases, the territorial high court would have jurisdiction to issue writs against such errant benches of the NCLT. Similarly, delay in the disposal of cases or interlocutory applications by the NCLT may not result in a judicial order that can be appealed under IBC. In such a scenario an aggrieved party cannot be left remediless, and it would be appropriate for a High Court to exercise writ jurisdiction to ensure speedy disposal by the NCLT, as it would be an effort to meet the ends of justice. This power becomes especially relevant now when the NCLT is over-burdened with cases which ends in a delay in conforming to statutory timelines under IBC. Such delays defeat the purpose for which the IBC was enacted, and it would not be out of place for high courts to interfere in appropriate cases.
I would like to conclude with a caveat that while high courts have powers to interfere with NCLT orders, they should only do so in extraordinary cases where non-interference would result in defeating the purpose of IBC, or cause a miscarriage of justice.
—Chitranshul Sinha is Partner at Dua Associates – Advocates & Solicitors. The author was not arguing for or adivising any of the parties for this case. Views expressed are personal
Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout
3 Mins Read
Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter