In an unusual case, where the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India itself became a petitioner in a case in which the National Company Law Tribunal had declared that regulation 36A of IBBI exceeded the powers of the board, the High Court of New Delhi ruled in favour of IBBI.
The splitting of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process into ‘inviting expression of interest’ and then seeking resolution plans, as provided in regulation 36A, was examined by NCLT. It held regulation 36A1 to be ultra vires of Section 240(1) of the IBC (which deals with IBBI’s powers), despite there being no specific challenge to the regulation.
NCLT reasoned that it was contrary to the need for speedy disposal of resolution.
Justice Prathiba Singh of Delhi High Court ruled that NCLT could sit in judgment of matters arising out of IBBI’s regulations, but not the regulations themselves. He agreed with IBBI’s advocate Vikas Mehta that NCLT does not have the jurisdiction for it.
Not an absolute consent
The National Green Tribunal’s Principal Bench, New Delhi, upheld its own order closing down the quarry of Jharkhand-based Vikas Stone Works. The tribunal had earlier ordered the closure on an appeal by activist Syed Arshad Nasar, finding “rampant violation of environment norms”.
The tribunal’s order, passed by Chairperson AK Goel, judicial member Sudhir Agarwal and expert member Senthil Vel, said: “The Chief Secretary may also file criminal case against violators, after necessary scrutiny, including against erring officers. Since violation of environmental laws involves offences under PMLA Act, 2002, Director ED may also look into the matter. Action taken report may be filed within four months by e-mail at judicial-ngt@gov.in.”
However, the order also gave the mining units the “liberty to move this tribunal, if they are aggrieved by this order”. Vikas Stone has moved the Supreme Court, essentially on the grounds that it still had a ‘consent to operate’, granted by the State Pollution Control Board’.
But the tribunal found no merit in the argument, pointing to its “findings against serious violation of the environment”.