Dowry Case | In the absence of specific allegations, mere naming of distant relatives cannot justify prosecution: MP High Court Non-Commencement of Activities Alone Not a Ground for Refusal: Calcutta High Court at Calcutta Affirms Trust Registration, Stating Granting Shifting Permissions is a Quasi-Judicial Act: Delhi High Court Quashes Disciplinary Charges Against MCA Official Jurisdiction Does Not Preclude Transfer to Competent Family Courts: Rules Kerala High Court Madras High Court Acquits Two, Reduces Sentence of Main Accused: Single Injury Does Not Prove Intent to Murder Financial Creditors Retain Right to Pursue Personal Guarantors Post-Resolution Plan: Punjab & Haryana High Court Proper Notice and Enquiry are the Bedrock of Just Administrative Actions: Rajasthan High Court Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Discharge Order in Madan Tamang Murder Case, Orders Trial for Bimal Gurung Review Cannot be Treated Like an Appeal in Disguise: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Tax Review Petition Delhi High Court Orders Interest Payment on Delayed Tax Refunds: ‘Refund Delays Cannot Be Justified by Legal Issues’” Freedom of Press Does Not Exempt Legal Consequences: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Journalists in Jail Sting Operation Highest Bidder Has No Vested Right”: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Rejection of SEZ Plot Allotment Indefeasible Right to Bail Arises When Investigation Exceeds Statutory Period: Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Extension Orders in NDPS Case Higher Qualifications Can't Override Prescribed Standards, But Service Deserves Pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court A Mere Breach of Promise Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust Under Section 406 IPC: Rajasthan High Court Madras High Court Overturns Order Denying IDA Increments, Citing Unfair Settlement Exclusion No Premeditated Intention to Kill: Kerala High Court Reduces Murder Convictions in Football Clash Case Landlord Need Not Be Owner to Seek Eviction: Court Upholds Broad Definition of Landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Delhi High Court Sets Aside Status Quo on Property, Initiates Contempt Proceedings for False Pleadings and Suppression of Facts Calcutta High Court Rules Deceased Driver Qualifies as Third Party, Overrides Policy Limitations for Just Compensation A Litigant Who Pollutes the Stream of Justice Is Not Entitled to Any Relief: Rajasthan High Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case Due to Suppression of Evidence Punjab and Haryana High Court Awards Compensation in Illegal Termination Case, Affirms Forest Department as an 'Industry' Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Madras High Court Acquits Man in Double Murder Case Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Loan Repayment Dispute: Manifestly Attended with Mala Fide Intentions Systematic Instruction Essential for ‘Education’ Tax Exemption: Delhi High Court Intent to Deceive Constitutes Forgery: High Court of Calcutta Dismisses Quashing Petition in Fraudulent Property Inclusion Case

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.

Similar News