The NCLAT has once again held that the NCLT, for the purpose of initiating insolvency, has no jurisdiction to decide whether a foreign decree is legal or illegal..The judgment is in response to an appeal filed against the Principal Bench order which got into the merits of a foreign decree, in the case of Usha Holdings LLC vs. Francorp Advisors. The Principal Bench found that the foreign decree did not satisfy the requirements of Section13 and 44A of the Civil Procedure Code, and hence the debt was not enforceable..The NCLAT, however, disagreed and held that NCLT has no authority to decide the legality of a foreign decree. While doing so, it relied on the NCLAT judgment in the case of Binani, and recorded that,.“we hold that the Adjudicating Authority not being a Court or ‘Tribunal’ and ‘Insolvency Resolution Process’ not being a litigation, it has no jurisdiction to decide whether a foreign decree is legal or illegal.”.The reliance on the Binani judgment may be misplaced. The text of the judgment (or at least the portion quoted) does not make any reference to or is in any way related to the power of the NCLT with respect to enforcement of foreign decrees..However, a previous judgment of the NCLAT provides better reasoning as to why NCLT is not the competent court to decide on validity of a decree, in insolvency proceedings. In the case of V.R. Hemantraj vs. Stanbic Bank Ghana Ltd, the NCLAT found that an application under Section 7, 9 or 10 is not a recovery proceeding, or proceeding for determination of claim on merit..It further held that the NCLT is not required to write a detailed decision as to which are the evidence relied upon for its satisfaction. The NCLT is only required to be satisfied that there is a ‘debt’ and default has occurred..Both judgments make reference to the term ‘Adjudicating Authority’ and not ‘NCLT’, because the NCLT has the powers of a Civil Court under provisions of the Companies Act, but the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC does not.
The NCLAT has once again held that the NCLT, for the purpose of initiating insolvency, has no jurisdiction to decide whether a foreign decree is legal or illegal..The judgment is in response to an appeal filed against the Principal Bench order which got into the merits of a foreign decree, in the case of Usha Holdings LLC vs. Francorp Advisors. The Principal Bench found that the foreign decree did not satisfy the requirements of Section13 and 44A of the Civil Procedure Code, and hence the debt was not enforceable..The NCLAT, however, disagreed and held that NCLT has no authority to decide the legality of a foreign decree. While doing so, it relied on the NCLAT judgment in the case of Binani, and recorded that,.“we hold that the Adjudicating Authority not being a Court or ‘Tribunal’ and ‘Insolvency Resolution Process’ not being a litigation, it has no jurisdiction to decide whether a foreign decree is legal or illegal.”.The reliance on the Binani judgment may be misplaced. The text of the judgment (or at least the portion quoted) does not make any reference to or is in any way related to the power of the NCLT with respect to enforcement of foreign decrees..However, a previous judgment of the NCLAT provides better reasoning as to why NCLT is not the competent court to decide on validity of a decree, in insolvency proceedings. In the case of V.R. Hemantraj vs. Stanbic Bank Ghana Ltd, the NCLAT found that an application under Section 7, 9 or 10 is not a recovery proceeding, or proceeding for determination of claim on merit..It further held that the NCLT is not required to write a detailed decision as to which are the evidence relied upon for its satisfaction. The NCLT is only required to be satisfied that there is a ‘debt’ and default has occurred..Both judgments make reference to the term ‘Adjudicating Authority’ and not ‘NCLT’, because the NCLT has the powers of a Civil Court under provisions of the Companies Act, but the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC does not.
