Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme 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