Pending Proceedings Archives | SCC Times https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/pending-proceedings/ Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News Mon, 24 Nov 2025 11:51:50 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.3 https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/cropped-SCC-Online_Telegram_HR-32x32.jpg Pending Proceedings Archives | SCC Times https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/pending-proceedings/ 32 32 Withholding Govt. Employee’s NOC for passport due to pending disciplinary proceedings violates fundamental right to liberty: Orissa High Court https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/11/20/ori-hc-withholding-noc-passport-no-bar-on-travel-abroad-due-to-pending-disciplinary-proceedings/ https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/11/20/ori-hc-withholding-noc-passport-no-bar-on-travel-abroad-due-to-pending-disciplinary-proceedings/#respond Thu, 20 Nov 2025 07:30:13 +0000 https://www.scconline.com/blog/?p=367269 “There is nothing in the Passport Act which even remotely suggests that pendency of disciplinary or vigilance proceedings would stand as an absolute bar for grant of passport.”

The post Withholding Govt. Employee’s NOC for passport due to pending disciplinary proceedings violates fundamental right to liberty: Orissa High Court appeared first on SCC Times.

]]>

Orissa High Court: While hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioner, a government doctor nearing retirement, sought issuance of a No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’) to enable processing of his passport application for visiting his daughter in Singapore, a Single Judge Bench of Sashikanta Mishra, J., held that refusal of NOC by the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Orissa, solely on the ground of unauthorised absence and pendency of disciplinary or vigilance proceedings, amounted to infringement of the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court further observed that the Passport Act, 1967 (‘Passport Act’) does not impose any absolute bar on travel abroad due to pending disciplinary proceedings and accordingly quashed the rejection orders.

Background:

The petitioner, who was due to retire in early 2026, sought to visit his daughter residing in Singapore. He applied for a passport and, as required for government servants, requested issuance of an NOC from the Health and Family Welfare Department. His application was rejected in July 2022 on the ground of unauthorized absence since 2013 and the pendency of three departmental proceedings. A subsequent writ petition was disposed of in July 2024, granting liberty to reapply if circumstances changed. He reapplied in September 2024, noting that one departmental proceeding had been dropped, but his request was again rejected in March 2025.

The petitioner contended that one vigilance case had ended in acquittal, while another was pending without trial commencement, and he had cooperated fully with the investigation. He argued that denial of NOC violated his fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The State, in its counter affidavit, maintained that suspension and unauthorized absence justified the pendency of proceedings, two of which were still active. However, the Regional Passport Officer referred to clauses 4.23 to 4.25 of the Passport Manual, 2020 (‘Passport Manual’), which mandated submission of NOC by government employees and clarified that such requirement could not be waived.

Consequently, in rejoinder, the petitioner stressed that his purpose was only to visit his daughter and grandchild, and that executive instructions could not curtail constitutional rights.

Analysis and Decision:

The Court observed that, from a reading of the letter dated 28-01-2014 issued by the Special Secretary to the Government in the Home Department, there is no positive order stating that an NOC shall not be issued if any disciplinary proceeding is pending. It has only been negatively stated that an NOC would be issued if there is no departmental proceeding. The Court noted that the question which falls for consideration is whether it is legally permissible for the Government to impose such a condition.

The Court emphasised that if a disciplinary proceeding is pending against a government employee, refusal of NOC would mean that he cannot apply for a passport, which in turn implies that he cannot travel abroad. The Court further observed that there is nothing in the Passport Act which even remotely suggests that pendency of disciplinary or vigilance proceedings would stand as an absolute bar for grant of passport. However, clauses 4.23 to 4.25 of the Passport Manual placed certain conditions for government employees.

On the facts and executive instructions referred to, the Court found it appropriate to rely upon the settled position of law laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, wherein Article 21 of the Constitution was given an extended meaning.

The Court observed that the Passport Act does not place an absolute bar for travel abroad on the ground of pendency of disciplinary or criminal proceedings. The Court emphasised that the letter dated 28-01-2014 cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated as enacted law. However, it indirectly curbs the right of a person to travel abroad, for without NOC, the employee cannot even apply for a passport. Consequently, the Court held that the letter places an embargo on the fundamental right of a citizen to travel abroad, amounting to infringement of the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court further noted that the restriction imposed by the State Government is unjustified for the reason that mere pendency or contemplation of disciplinary proceedings cannot be equated with proven guilt. The Court emphasised that such a view militates against the fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Thus, the Court held that non-issue of NOC on the cited ground cannot be sustained in law.

The Court, therefore, concluded that refusal of NOC on the ground of pendency of disciplinary or criminal proceedings amounts to an indirect infringement of the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Holding such denial unsustainable in law, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the rejection orders and directed the authorities concerned to issue the NOC in favour of the petitioner without any further delay, and in any case within six weeks from the date of the judgment.

[Ashok Kumar Behera v. State of Orissa, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 3963, decided on 11-11-12025]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner: Sidheswar Mallik, P.C. Das, M. Mallik, S. Malllick & A.P. Mohanty, Advocates.

For the Opposite Parties: S.N. Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate; P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with S. Patra, CGC.

Buy Constitution of India  HERE

Constitution of India

The post Withholding Govt. Employee’s NOC for passport due to pending disciplinary proceedings violates fundamental right to liberty: Orissa High Court appeared first on SCC Times.

]]> https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/11/20/ori-hc-withholding-noc-passport-no-bar-on-travel-abroad-due-to-pending-disciplinary-proceedings/feed/ 0 367269 What is the effect of commencement of proceedings under the IBC, over any pending proceedings before another Court or Tribunal? ITAT discusses https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/08/30/itat-effect-commencement-proceedings-ibc-pending-proceedings-tribunal-legal-updates/ https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/08/30/itat-effect-commencement-proceedings-ibc-pending-proceedings-tribunal-legal-updates/#respond Tue, 30 Aug 2022 04:30:07 +0000 https://www.scconline.com/blog/?p=272619 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad: While deciding the instant appeal in the backdrop of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) pending against

The post What is the effect of commencement of proceedings under the IBC, over any pending proceedings before another Court or Tribunal? ITAT discusses appeared first on SCC Times.

]]>

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad: While deciding the instant appeal in the backdrop of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) pending against the assessee before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), the Bench of Rama Kanta Panda (Accountant Member) and K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member), held that once the proceedings have commenced by institution of application under Sections 7 or 9 or 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter IBC or the Code), the continuance of pending proceedings in any Court of law or Tribunal is prohibited.

The Tribunal observed the issue in the light of Sections 13 and 14 IBC 2016 and stated that under Section 13 of IBC, 2016, the adjudicating authority after admission of the application under Sections 7 or 9 or 10 of the Code, shall declare a moratorium which shall include the prohibition of the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor in any court of law or tribunal

The Tribunal relied upon Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657 wherein it was held that once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 (1) of the Code, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. All the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central or any State Government, local authority (if not part of the resolution plan), shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued.

Decision:With the afore-stated observations and noting that there is an ongoing proceeding before the NCLAT instituted under the IBC, 2016, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine.

The parties were granted leave to seek restoration of the appeals only if it is necessitated by the orders of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings.[Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. v. ACIT, 2022 SCC OnLine ITAT 474, decided on 22-07-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Assessee: S.Rama Rao, AR

Revenue: Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR

*Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

The post What is the effect of commencement of proceedings under the IBC, over any pending proceedings before another Court or Tribunal? ITAT discusses appeared first on SCC Times.

]]> https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/08/30/itat-effect-commencement-proceedings-ibc-pending-proceedings-tribunal-legal-updates/feed/ 0 272619 Proceedings instituted under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 not to be transferred to fora created under 2019 Act with newly prescribed pecuniary limits: Supreme Court https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/03/17/proceedings-instituted-under-consumer-protection-act-1986-not-to-be-transferred-to-fora-created-under-2019-act-with-newly-prescribed-pecuniary-limits-supreme-court/ https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/03/17/proceedings-instituted-under-consumer-protection-act-1986-not-to-be-transferred-to-fora-created-under-2019-act-with-newly-prescribed-pecuniary-limits-supreme-court/#comments Wed, 17 Mar 2021 18:19:47 +0000 https://www.scconline.com/blog/?p=245713 "One can imagine the serious hardship that would be caused to the consumers, if cases which have been already instituted before the NCDRC were required to be transferred to the SCDRCs as a result of the alteration of pecuniary limits by the Act of 2019."

The post Proceedings instituted under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 not to be transferred to fora created under 2019 Act with newly prescribed pecuniary limits: Supreme Court appeared first on SCC Times.

]]> Supreme Court: The bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud* and MR Shah. JJ has held that the proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 on 20 July 2020 would continue before the fora corresponding to those under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the National Commission, State Commissions and District Commissions) and not be transferred in terms of the pecuniary jurisdiction set for the fora established under the Act of 2019.

Background

The material provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 came into force on 20 July 2020. The appellants instituted a consumer case against real estate developers before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 18 June 2020 under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 . The NCDRC by its order dated 30 July 2020 dismissed the consumer case on the ground that after the enforcement of the Act of 2019, its pecuniary jurisdiction has been enhanced from rupees one crore to rupees ten crores. The appellants’ review petition was also dismissed by the NCDRC on 5 October 2020. In the present case, the claim of Rs. 2.19 crores is below the enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCDRC.

This gave rise to the issue as to whether a complaint which was filed and registered under the Act of 1986, before the new Act of 2019 came into force, has to be entertained under the provisions of the erstwhile legislation. In anticipation of the enforcement of the Act of 2019, an administrative notice was issued by the NCDRC on 17 July 2020 to allow the functioning of its registry for fresh filings on 18 July 2020, since the new law was to come into force on 20 July 2020.

Analysis

Impact of a change in forum on pending proceedings and retrospectivity

After considering a number of precedents that have interpreted the impact of a change in forum on pending proceedings and retrospectivity, the following position of law emerged:

“a change in forum lies in the realm of procedure. Accordingly, in compliance with the tenets of statutory interpretation applicable to procedural law, amendments on matters of procedure are retrospective, unless a contrary intention emerges from the statute.”

Section 107 of the Act of 2019

  • Section 107(1) of the Act of 2019 repeals the Act of 1986.
  • Section 107 (2) has saved “the previous operation” of any repealed enactment or “anything duly done or suffered thereunder to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the new legislation”.
  • Section 107(3) indicates that the mention of particular matters in sub-Section (2) will not prejudice or affect the general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act provides governing principles with regard to the impact of the repeal of a central statute or regulation. These governing principles are to apply, “unless a different intention appears”. Clause (c) of Section 6 inter alia stipulates that a repeal would not affect “any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed”. The right to pursue a validly instituted consumer complaint under the Act of 1986 is a right which has accrued under the law which was repealed.

Clause (c) of Section 6 has the effect of preserving the right which has accrued. Clause (e) ensures that a legal proceeding which has been initiated to protect or enforce “such right” will not be affected and that it can be continued as if the repealing legislation has not been enacted. The expression “such a right” in clause (e) evidently means the right which has been adverted to in clause (c).

“The plain consequence of clause (c) and clause (e), when read together is twofold: first, the right which has accrued on the date of the institution of the consumer complaint under the Act of 1986 (the repealing law) is preserved; and second, the enforcement of the right through the instrument of a legal proceeding or remedy will not be affected by the repeal.”

However, considering that right to a forum is not an accrued right, the question whether the pending legal proceedings are required to be transferred to the newly created forum by virtue of the repeal would still persist.

While Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act protects the pending legal proceedings for the enforcement of an accrued right from the effect of a repeal, this does not mean that the legal proceedings at a particular forum are saved from the effects from the repeal.

Object of the Act of 2019

There is no express language indicating that all pending cases would stand transferred to the fora created by the Act of 2019 by applying its newly prescribed pecuniary limits.

The Act of 2019 is enacted to provide “for protection of the interests of consumers” and has taken note of the evolution of consumer markets by the proliferation of products and services in light of global supply chains, ecommerce and international trade.

“New markets have provided a wider range of access to consumers. But at the same time, consumers are vulnerable to exploitation through unfair and unethical business practices. The Act has sought to address “the myriad and constantly emerging vulnerabilities of the consumers. The recurring theme in the new legislation is the protection of consumers which is sought to be strengthened by procedural interventions such as strengthening class actions and introducing mediation as an alternate forum of dispute resolution.”

In this backdrop, something specific in terms of statutory language – either express words or words indicative of a necessary intendment would have been required for mandating the transfer of pending cases.

“One can imagine the serious hardship that would be caused to the consumers, if cases which have been already instituted before the NCDRC were required to be transferred to the SCDRCs as a result of the alteration of pecuniary limits by the Act of 2019. A consumer who has engaged legal counsel at the headquarters of the NCDRC would have to undertake a fresh round of legal representation before the SCDRC incurring expense and engendering uncertainty in obtaining access to justice. Likewise, where complaints have been instituted before the SCDRC, a transfer of proceedings would require consumers to obtain legal representation before the District Commission if cases were to be transferred. Such a course of action would have a detrimental impact on the rights of consumers. Many consumers may not have the wherewithal or the resources to undertake a fresh burden of finding legal counsel to represent them in the new forum to which their cases would stand transferred.”

Hence, it would be difficult to attribute to Parliament, whose purpose in enacting the Act of 2019 was to protect and support consumers with an intent that would lead to financial hardship, uncertainty and expense in the conduct of consumer litigation.

Data on pendency of cases

Data drawn from annual reports of the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs indicates pendency from financial year 2015-16 to financial year 2019-20 indicates that as on 31 October 2019, 21,216 cases were pending before the NCDRC and 1,25,156 cases were pending before the SCDRC. Many of these cases would have to be transferred if the view which the developer propounds is upheld.

“This will seriously dislocate the interests of consumers in a manner which defeats the object of the legislation, which is to protect and promote their welfare. Clear words indicative of either an express intent or an intent by necessary implication would be necessary to achieve this result. The Act of 2019 contains no such indication.”

Hence, the legislature cannot be attributed to be remiss in not explicitly providing for transfer of pending cases according to the new pecuniary limits set up for the fora established by the new law, were that to be its intention.

Conclusion

All proceedings instituted before 20 July 2020 under the Act of 1986 shall continue to be heard by the fora corresponding to those designated under the Act of 1986 and not be transferred in terms of the new pecuniary limits established under the Act of 2019.

[Neena Aneja v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 225, decided on 16.03.2021]

*Judgment by: Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud

Know Thy Judge| Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud

Appearances before the Court by:

For appellants: Advocate P Vinay Kumar

For respondent: Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal

The post Proceedings instituted under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 not to be transferred to fora created under 2019 Act with newly prescribed pecuniary limits: Supreme Court appeared first on SCC Times.

]]> https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/03/17/proceedings-instituted-under-consumer-protection-act-1986-not-to-be-transferred-to-fora-created-under-2019-act-with-newly-prescribed-pecuniary-limits-supreme-court/feed/ 1 245713 COVID-19 | Lockdown | NCLAT extends period of limitation applicable to pending proceedings/ interim orders, and directs banks to extend periods of Fixed Deposits https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/03/31/covid-19-lockdown-nclat-extends-period-of-limitation-applicable-to-pending-proceedings-interim-orders-and-directs-banks-to-extend-periods-of-fixed-deposits/ https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/03/31/covid-19-lockdown-nclat-extends-period-of-limitation-applicable-to-pending-proceedings-interim-orders-and-directs-banks-to-extend-periods-of-fixed-deposits/#respond Tue, 31 Mar 2020 05:26:52 +0000 https://www.scconline.com/blog/?p=227713 Upon requests for urgent listing of cases having been made telephonically to Registrar of this Appellate Tribunal from various persons, who were

The post COVID-19 | Lockdown | NCLAT extends period of limitation applicable to pending proceedings/ interim orders, and directs banks to extend periods of Fixed Deposits appeared first on SCC Times.

]]> Upon requests for urgent listing of cases having been made telephonically to Registrar of this Appellate Tribunal from various persons, who were unable to physically file the same on account of complete lockdown declared by Government with effect from 25th March, 2020.

In view of the above, Bench comprising of Justice Bansi Lal Bhat (Actg. Chairperson) and Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial) and Dr Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical) takes suo moto cognizance of the unprecedented situation arising out of spread of COVID19 virus declared a pandemic.

Having regard to the hardships being faced by various stakeholders as also the legal fraternity, which go beyond filing of Appeals/ cases, which has already been taken care of by the Hon’ble Apex Court by extending the period of limitation with effect from 15th March, 2020 till further order/s in terms of order dated 23rd March, 2020 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).03/2020, inasmuch as certain steps required to be taken by various Authorities under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or to comply with various provisions and to adhere to the prescribed timelines for taking the ‘Resolution Process’ to its logical conclusion in order to obviate and mitigate such hardships, this Appellate Tribunal in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 11 of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 r/w the decision of this Appellate Tribunal rendered in “Quinn Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mack Soft Tech Pvt. Ltd. in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.185 of 2018” decided on 8th May, 2018 do hereby order as follows: –

(1) That the period of lockdown ordered by the Central Government and the State Governments including the period as may be extended either in whole or part of the country, where the registered office of the Corporate Debtor may be located, shall be excluded for the purpose of counting of the period for ‘Resolution Process under Section 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in all cases where ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ has been initiated and pending before any Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal or in Appeal before this Appellate Tribunal.

(2) It is further ordered that any interim order/ stay order passed by this Appellate Tribunal in anyone or the other Appeal under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 shall continue till next date of hearing, which may be notified later.

The above order is to be circulated to all all benches of NCLT, New Delhi.

In Re Competition Act, 2002, this Appellate Tribunal do hereby order as follows: –

(1) That interim direction / stay order passed in all competition Appeals shall continue until further order.

(2) In the event of expiry of period of Fixed Deposits, the concerned bank shall renew the same for further period of six months.

In Re National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 do hereby order as follows: –

(1) It is ordered that any interim order/ stay order passed by this Appellate Tribunal in anyone or the other Appeal under the Companies Act, 2013 shall continue till next date of hearing, which may be notified later.

[Suo Moto – Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 01 of 2020, Order dt. 30-03-2020]

The post COVID-19 | Lockdown | NCLAT extends period of limitation applicable to pending proceedings/ interim orders, and directs banks to extend periods of Fixed Deposits appeared first on SCC Times.

]]> https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/03/31/covid-19-lockdown-nclat-extends-period-of-limitation-applicable-to-pending-proceedings-interim-orders-and-directs-banks-to-extend-periods-of-fixed-deposits/feed/ 0 227713