Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial), while dismissing an appeal filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 held that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India had no locus standi to file the appeal.

The appeal was filed by the IBBI against the order passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai contending that the interpretation of Section 29A  made therein by the Tribunal was not correct that resulted in selection of an ineligible Resolution Applicant and further approval of an ineligible resolution plan. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the IBBI is a regulatory body required to act in terms of Sections 196 and 240 I&B Code.

At the outset, the Appellate Tribunal observed, IBBI could not be held to be an aggrieved person under the Code. Further, it was held that the interpretation challenged as mentioned above may not be proper, but the IBBI had no locus standi to challenge the same. Referring to Section 30, the Board observed that it is the duty of the Resolution Professional to find out which resolution plans are in conformity with provisions of the Code. Further, in case of any wrong finding by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), it is the Resolution Professional, who represents the Corporate Debtor, to prefer an appeal under Section 61. While dismissing the appeal for the aforesaid reasons, liberty was given to IBBI to inform the Resolution Professional to move an appeal under Section 61. [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India v. Wig Associates (P) Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine NCLAT 386, order dated 01-08-2018]

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Bharati H. Dangre, J., addressed a Writ Petition filed addressing the order of the Family Court in regard to the payment of maintenance to the wife under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 without considering the essence of Section 20 and Section 12 of the said Act in reference to the person being “Aggrieved Person” in the Act.

The petitioner-husband has submitted that the respondent-wife after taking away the children from their joint custody invoked Section 34, 37(2), 38 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act along with this she had prayed for a restrained order against the husband for their son Aryaman. Further, the respondent- wife under Section 20 of the said Act had preferred an application for monetary relief of Rs. 5 Lakhs per month as she was entitled for a maintenance of that much amount by taking into consideration her lifestyle and the earning capacity of the husband. For the said reasons and the filed application, order of the family court came into respondent’s favour by granting maintenance of Rs. 2 lakhs per month and primarily the reason for this order was the earning capacity of the petitioner-husband.

However, it has been contended in the present petition, by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the trial court has passed an erroneous order as they have ignored the essence of Section 12 in which such an appeal is preferred. The said S.12 focuses on the term “aggrieved person”, which clearly has been ignored in the present application filed by the respondent-wife as no pleading attributing to domestic violence has been stated which brings to no relief be granted in reference to the said Act. It has also been claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the point where the petitioner’s company was under the process of liquidation and the petitioner had already resigned from his services and he was still continuing to cater the expenses of his daughter and son was not taken into relevance at all.

Therefore, by taking into consideration all the stated facts and circumstances of the case, the high court by duly taking into consideration the point of petitioner’s earning capacity and his company being under the process of liquidation, partly allowed the petition on the basis that the family court’s approach has been grossly erroneous and it needs to be reconsidered on the matter of grant of maintenance. [Prakash Kumar Singhee v. Amrapali Singhee, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1197, dated 04-05-2018]