National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT): The Coram of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shreesha Merla (Technical Member) held that, the territorial jurisdiction of NCLT to decide a case under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be taken away by the Facility Agreement between the parties.
Instant appeal was filed against the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, by which the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 had been admitted.
The Appellant’s counsel submitted that there was no jurisdiction with the Principal Bench, Delhi to entertain Section 7 Application. He referred to a Clause from the Facility Agreement, as per which Courts at Mumbai had jurisdiction in respect of any matter of the Facility Agreement.
Analysis, Law and Decision
First, the Tribunal referred to Section 60(1) of the Code provides for Adjudicating Authority for Corporate Persons. Section 60(1) is as follows:
- (1) The Adjudicating Authority, in relation to insolvency resolution and liquidation for corporate persons including corporate debtors and personal guarantors thereof shall be the National Company Law Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the corporate persons located.
Coram expressed that, Adjudicating Authority in relation to Insolvency Resolution shall be the National Company Law Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the corporate persons is located.
Tribunal stated that, the appellant cannot rely on clause 24.12 of the Facility Agreement which provides jurisdiction to the Mumbai Courts.
Noting the above, Coram held that, for filing an Application under Section 7 of the Code, the provisions of Section 60(1) read with Section 238 of the Code shall be overriding clause 24.12 of the Facility Agreement.
Further, not denying that Corporate Debtor’s registered office was situated in New Delhi where the territorial jurisdiction to entertain such application was with NCLT, Delhi, Coram did not accept the submissions of Counsel for the appellant.
In view of the above, the appeal was dismissed. [Anil Kumar Malhotra v. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 200, decided on 19-4-2022]
Advocates before the Tribunal:
For Appellant: Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Mr. Siddharth Srivastava, Sumeir Ahuja, Advocates
Advocate Gunjan Chauvey, for R-1
For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mittal, Advocate for IRP, R-2.
