No Interference was to be made in Ongoing Proceedings despite Pending Litigation in NCLAT

Case Details: Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. v. Kalpataru Properties (P.) Ltd. - [2023] 149 taxmann.com 34 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Sanjay Kishan Kaul & Abhay S. Oka, JJ.
  • K.V. Viswanathan, Nakul Dewan, Sr. Advs., Anirban Bhattacharya, Ativ Patel, Ms Priyanka Vora, Advs., Siddhant Buxy, AOR, Krishna Sumanth, Darshit Dave & Sivagnanam K., Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • Mukul Rohatgi, Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advs., Mahesh Agarwal, C. Rashmikant, Sunil Mittal, Ms Anu Tiwari, Arshit Anand, Ms Geetika Sharma, Ms Mishika Bajpai, Namrata Shah, Ms Nidhi Malhotra, Praveen Dhage, Kyus Modi, Sudhir Kumar, Shamant Satiya, Advs. & E.C. Agrawala, AOR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the High Court raising issues about certain provisions of the Code. However, the PIL was dismissed and subsequently, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was also dismissed.

Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition with leave to appeal against the original order of the High Court alleging that they were not parties to those proceedings and that certain observations had been made in that order, which affected pending litigation relating to the respondent.

It was noted that if this was the case, it was the respondent’s responsibility to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. The SLP was dismissed with this liberty. Subsequently, a review application was filed by the respondent, which was decided in their favour against which the instant SLP was filed by the petitioner.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that considerable litigation relating to the matter was pending before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which had not resulted in a favourable order by the NCLAT for the petitioner.

The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner had an independent appeal pending before the NCLAT, the instant proceedings filed by the petitioner were not to be entertained.

The Supreme Court, further held that it was for the NCLAT to examine the petitioner’s appeal on its own merits, and equally, the respondent would have all defences available.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.