Serving as a Resolution Professional in a Specific Area Doesn’t Dictate Territorial Jurisdiction

Case Details: Ananda Rao Korada v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India - [2023] 157 taxmann.com 451 (HC-Calcutta)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
  • Chayan Gupta, Shoham Sanyal, Soumyajyoti Nandy & G. Prakash for the Petitioner. 
  • Ms A. Rao & A. Basu for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Petitioner-Resolution Professional filed a petition on the ground that in the corporate resolution proceeding in which the cancellation of RP’s registration took place was in Odisha and the RP had participated in proceedings in connection therewith in High Court at Odisha.

However, decision to cancel the petitioner’s registration was taken by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India in New Delhi. The Respondent IBBI alleged that the instant writ petition was not maintainable.

It was noted that the petitioner himself was registered in Kolkata as a RP and thereafter started functioning in such a capacity throughout the country. The High Court held that functioning as a RP within the territorial jurisdiction of Odisha could not, by any stretch of imagination, be cited as a determinant for territorial jurisdiction when RP’s very registration for acting as a RP had been cancelled.

High Court Held

Further the HC held that the cancellation, as much as in Odisha, precluded petitioner from acting as a RP throughout territorial jurisdiction of India, which was not restricted to a particular State.

Also the mere fact that decision to cancel petitioner’s registration was taken in New Delhi by IBBI did not in any way restrict jurisdiction of cause of action to the Delhi High Court.

Consequently the HC held that cause and effect of decision of respondent authorities were not limited to functioning of petitioner in New Delhi and, thus, it could not be said that territorial jurisdiction could be restricted to Odisha.

Therefore, instant Court would have territorial jurisdiction as at least a part of cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of West Bengal and such objection as to maintainability taken by respondent was to be turned down.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India [2004] 6 SCC 254 (para 2)
  • Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu [1994] 4 SCC 711 (para 3)
  • National Textile Corpn. Ltd. v. Haribox Swalram [2004] 9 SCC 786 (para 3)
  • Magma Fincorp Ltd. v. Asstt. Director, DGCEI [2014] 51 taxmann.com 108/48 GST 491 (Cal.) (para 10)
  • Everest Coal Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Coal Controller [1986] 90 CWN 438 (para 11)
  • Sri Pankaj Panwar v. Lalit Kala Akademi AIR 2015 Cal 67 (para 13)
  • Pranab Bose v. Union of India [WPO/742/2013, dated 8-5-2023] (para 14)
  • Cement Workers Mandal v. Global Cements Ltd. [2019] 20 SCC 517 (para 15).