AXIS BANK LIMITED Vs. NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Deven Parikh, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the present writ petition, has been filed, inter alia, only for the limited protection to the petitioner against the respondents pending adjudication of the interlocutory application before the tribunal. It is submitted that the Application (F) No.2401105/01356/2021 has been filed in Company Petition No.(I.B.) No.759(AHM) 2019 by the petitioner, however, owing to unavailability of the bench at Tribunal, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking interim protection.

(2.) On the other hand, Mr. Mihir H. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Tanaya G. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.10 at the outset, submitted that the edifice on which the submissions are made that the respondent nos.10 and 11 are culprits, is misconceived. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the averments contained in the writ petition, suggest that there is not a whisper that the respondent nos.10 and 11 have tried to steal a march over the petitioner. It is submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is not bona fide because, it filed a commercial suit and got the orders dtd. 13.09.2019 and 19.09.2019 which led to filing of the writ petition before this Court. This Court, while allowing the writ petition, has observed that the Sintex BAPL and its subsidiaries have arrived at a consensus with the petitioner and got the ex parte order of injunction modified accordingly. It has also been prima facie observed that Sintex BAPL and its subsidiaries only with a view to protecting their own interest, conveniently overlooked or rather turned a blind eye to the liabilities towards the petitioner. It is submitted that this Court has therefore, quashed and set aside the orders, remanding the matter back to the Commercial Court for fresh consideration. Therefore, it is not the respondent nos.10 and 11 who are the culprits but, it is the petitioner, who knowing fully well, executed the undertaking, then filed a suit seeking declaration, declaring undertaking as valid, got the order passed in a surreptitious manner.

(3.) Mr. Shalin N. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Tanaya G. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.12 has submitted that the judgment/principle cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. Art. 227 of the Constitution of India provides that the High Court shall have superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. It is submitted that so far as the other two clauses are concerned, they would not apply; however, so far as the clause (a) is concerned, there are no pleadings in the writ petition. It is further submitted that artificial urgency has been created, when there exists none. The apprehension raised that the amount if appropriated by the respondent nos.10 and 11, situation would become irreversible, is misconceived inasmuch as, the Tribunal has wide powers to restore the position. Therefore, the present writ petition is totally impermissible. It is also submitted that contention that the respondent nos.10 to 14 have tried to overreach the Court process, is also misconceived inasmuch as, it is the petitioner who had filed the suit behind the back of the respondent nos.10 to 14, got the order which, is clear from the observations made by this Court in the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.18466 of 2019.