District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala 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