Kusum Products Ltd vs Union Of India
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.69 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The tribunal has no power under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, the SICA Repeal Act, 2003, or the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to extend, on an application made after the repeal of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the time for compliance with a revival scheme framed by the erstwhile BIFR, because none of those enactments contains a provision conferring such a power. An application seeking extension of the statutory time for compliance with a BIFR revival scheme, where no provision of the governing statutes or rules authorises such extension, is not maintainable before the Adjudicating Authority, and the appellate tribunal is right to dismiss the appeal against its rejection.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Kusum Products Limited ...Appellant Vs Union of India ...Respondent
Present: For Appellants: - Ms. Purti Marwaha, Advocate.
ORDER
03.05.2018 ─ The Appellant Company brought a Scheme of revival plan from erstwhile 'Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction' (hereinafter referred to as "BIFR"). Subsequently, the Company sought for extension for the period for compliance of the Scheme.
2. In the meantime, 'Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985' (hereinafter referred to as "SICA Act, 1985") was repealed by 'Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003' (hereinafter referred to as "SICA Repeal Act, 2003"). In absence of any provision for extension of period for compliance of the Scheme, the Appellant preferred an application under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "NCLAT Rules, 2016") read with 'SICA Repeal Act, 2003' read with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "I&B Code") for extension of statutory time.
3. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, rejected the application in absence of any -2-
provision to grant extension of time for compliance of the Scheme framed by the BIFR under 'SICA Act, 1985'.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that sub-section 4(b) of the 'SICA Repeal Act, 2003' has been amended and substituted by the Eighth Schedule of the 'I&B Code' under Section 252 of the said Code. However, the said provision is not applicable to case of the Appellant as it relates to initiation of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' under Section 10 by the Company and not for extension of time of Scheme of revival plan.
5. As there is no provision under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 or 'SICA Repeal Act, 2003' and 'I&B Code' to grant such extension of time, we hold that the Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the application being not maintainable. We accordingly dismiss the appeal.
However, the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority or this Appellate Tribunal shall not come in the way of the Appellant Company to move before a court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief. No cost.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial) Ar
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.69 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