4. Therefore, two questions arise for consideration:
a. Is NCLAT an efficacious remedy? What can be done to strengthen NCLAT and make it efficacious?
b. How can the doctrine of´ "Lex dilationes semper exhorret" be overcome in the context of NCLAT?
is the direction of the Supreme Court and this is also in the interests of litigants across the country. NCLAT as remedy was considered inefficacious because prior to establishment of NCLAT, a litigant could have approached High Court in his own home state.
b. In CCI Vs SAIL [2010 10 SCC 744], it was ruled that orders which have not been made specifically appealable cannot be treated appealable by implication. In the instant case, Supreme Court set aside an order of the Appellate Tribunal which had set aside an order passed by CCI under Sec 26(1) of the Act.
2019) is worth perusal. The Supreme Court framed two questions of law (a) whether High Court ought to have interfered under Article 226/227 on an order passed by NCLT, ignoring the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal to NCLAT, and if so under which circumstances and
(b) whether questions of fraud can be inquired into by NCLT/NCLAT in the proceedings initiated under IBC? While Supreme Court answered the second question in favour of NCLT/NCLAT, the first question was answered against NCLT. It was held that moratorium does not create a new right but moratorium maintains status quo and (b) the leased land did not exclusively belong to the Corporate Debtor. Thus, when it was held that NCLT Chennai Bench had acted in excess of its jurisdiction, Supreme Court held that intervention by High Court under Article 226/227 was justified. While dismissing the appeal, Supreme Court held that NCLT does not have jurisdiction of judicial review over administrative action of Government of Karnataka. Hence, the intervention of High Court. The legal principle of ouster clause/privative clause and Anisminic was dealt with whereby a distinction between a situation where NCLT was acting within powers conferred on it by law but committed an error in law was addressed
7. To conclude:
Views Are Personal Only.