Jubey M. Devasia & Anr vs Kims Bellerose Institute Of Medical ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 377 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 does not lie against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal allowing an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and dismissing a petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 on the ground of reference to arbitration, because in passing such an order the Tribunal acts as a judicial authority under the Arbitration Act and not in its capacity as a Tribunal under the Companies Act. The fact that the underlying petition under Sections 241 and 242 was to be determined on its merits does not take the case outside that principle, since the nature of the order is determined by the capacity in which the Tribunal acts when it refers the parties to arbitration. The National Company Law Tribunal has no inherent power under its Rules, including Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, to pass orders beyond those conferred by the statute, and cannot rely on such Rules to sustain an appeal against an order that is not appealable.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Jubey M. Devasia & Anr. ...Appellants
Vs.
Kims Bellerose Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Piyush Singh, Advocate.
ORDER
10.12.2018─ This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against
the order dated 5th September, 2018 passed by the National Company
Law Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short), Division Bench, Chennai.
2. By the impugned order, the Interlocutory Application preferred by
the Respondent under Section 8 of the 'Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996' has been allowed and the Company Petition filed under Sections
241 & 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 has been dismissed.
3. In "Thota Gurunath Reddy & Ors. Vs. Continental Hospitals
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.─ Company Appeal (AT) No. 160 of 2017", this
Appellate Tribunal while dealing with the application filed under Section
45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, held that the appeal
under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 is not maintainable
Contd/-................
-2-
against an order of reference to Arbitral Tribunal as the National
Company Law Tribunal do not pass the order in the capacity of a
Tribunal but in the capacity of the 'judicial authority'.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant tried to
distinguish the decision in "Thota Gurunath Reddy & Ors." (Supra)
on the ground that the application under Sections 241 & 242 was
required to be determined on merit. He further submits that the
Tribunal has inherent power under Rule 11 of the National Company
Law Tribunal Rules, 2016.
5. However, such submission cannot be accepted as the Tribunal
has no inherent power under its Rules to pass any order. The case of
the Appellant being covered by the decision in "Thota Gurunath Reddy
& Ors." (Supra) as the appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act,
2013 is not maintainable, we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order dated 5th September, 2018. It is accordingly dismissed.
No cost.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial) Ar/uk
Company Appeal (AT) No. 377 of 2018
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free