ANILKUMAR PODDAR Vs. PRIME FOCUS LTD AND ORS
LAWS(NCLT)-2016-9-28
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Decided on September 26,2016

ANILKUMAR PODDAR Appellant
VERSUS
PRIME FOCUS LTD AND ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioner is common in all the CPs filed under sections 163 and 219 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the old Act'), though the respondents are different, the issue presently raised by this petitioner in all these petitions being common and same, this Bench hereby passes this common order covering all the CPs today posted under sections 163 and 219 of the old Act. In these case, except CP No. 24/2014 filed under section 219, all other cases, filed under section 163 of the old Act.
(2.)The petitioner has today raised an issue stating that since National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT' has no subject-matter jurisdiction to deal with the cases filed by him under sections 163 and 219 of the old Act on the ground that the jurisdiction conferred upon Company Law Board ('CLB') under sections 163 and 219 of the old Act has now been omitted under the corresponding section's 94 and 136 in the Companies Act, 2013 ('the new Act'), therefore, sought for dismissal of Company Petitions bearing Nos. 24/2014, 26/2014, 05/2013, 07/2013, 09/2013, 06/2013, 08/2013, 2013, 13/2013, 14/2013, 15/2013, 17/2013, 25/2012, 26/2012, 27/2012, 28/2012, 29/2012, 30/2012, 31/2012, 32/2012, 33/2012, 34/2012, 35/2012, 36/2012, 37/2012, 38/2012, 39/2012, 40/2012, 41/2012, 42/2012, 43/2012, 44/2012, 45/2012, 46/2012, 47/2012, 48/2012, 49/2012, 50/2012, 51/2012, 52/2012, 53/2012, 54/2012, 55/2012, 56/2012, 57/2012, 58/2012, 59/2012, 60/2012, 61/2012, 62/2012, 63/2012, 64/2012, 65/2012, 66/2012, 67/2012, 68/2012, 69/2012,93/2012, 94/2012, 95/2012, 96/2012, 97/2012, 98/2012, 99/2012, 100/2012, 101/2012, 102/2012, 103/2012, 104/2012, 105/2012, 106/2012, 107/2012, 108/2012, 109/2012, 110/2012, 111/2012, 20/2013, 21/2013, 22/2013, 23/2013, 24/2013, 25/2013, 26/2013, 27/2013, 28/2013, 29/2013, 54/2013, 55/2013, 73/2013, 74/2013 pending before this Bench holding that NCLT has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters under sections 163 and 219 of the old Act transferred from CLB to NCLT.
(3.)The argument, the petitioner makes is that the jurisdiction conferred on CLB under sections 163 and 219 of the old Act has been omitted under the corresponding sections, that is sections 94 and 136 of the new Act, and for having section 434, sub-section 1(a) envisages that whatever matters transferred from CLB to NCLT, they shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the new Act. Therefore, since jurisdiction not being conferred on NCLT under the new Act to deal with the cases filed under sections 163 and 219 of the old Act before CLB, the petitioner says his cases shall be dismissed on the ground no jurisdiction to NCLT for trying the cases under sections 163 and 219.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.