TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

Special Courts Established Under Chapter XXVIII Of The Companies Act Retain Jurisdiction For IBC Offences, Not Affected By Later Legislative Changes: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the enduring jurisdiction of Special Courts to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), independent of subsequent amendments to the Companies Act. This clarification came through a judgment delivered on April 19, 2024, overturning a prior decision of the Bombay High Court.

The case emerged from the Bombay High Court's decision dated February 14, 2022, which had quashed proceedings against Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu and others. These proceedings were initiated under the IBC due to non-compliance with a One-Time Settlement with Allahabad Bank, arguing that after the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017, a Sessions Judge's Special Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction.

The apex court pointed out that Section 236(1) of the IBC specifies that offences under the Code are to be adjudicated by the Special Courts as defined in Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013. The Court interpreted this provision as a case of "legislation by incorporation" which means that the role of Special Courts defined at the time of the Code's enactment remains unaffected by subsequent changes to the Companies Act.

It was noted that had there been an intention to align the IBC's provisions concerning Special Courts with amendments to the Companies Act, explicit amendments to Section 236 of the IBC would have been necessary. The absence of such amendments preserves the jurisdiction as originally established.

The Supreme Court corrected the High Court's misinterpretation regarding the impact of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017 on the jurisdiction of Special Courts. The judgment underscored that the original jurisdictional mandate given to Special Courts under the IBC continues to stand.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and reaffirmed that Special Courts as constituted at the time of the IBC's enactment have jurisdiction over IBC offences. The matter was sent back to the High Court to evaluate the original petition based on its merits.

Date of Decision: April 19, 2024.

Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of India v. Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu & Ors.

Latest Legal News