This is a writ petition filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Special Case No. 853/2020. The complaint was filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) under Sections 73(a) and 235A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The petitioners argue that the Additional Sessions Judge lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The core issue revolves around which court, either a Sessions Court or a Metropolitan/Judicial Magistrate Court, has the jurisdiction to try offenses under the IBC.
Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu and Ramesh Satyanarayan Malu, the petitioners, are facing a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) under Sections 73(a) and 235A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The complaint was filed in the Additional Sessions Judge's court. The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge to entertain the complaint, arguing that offenses under the IBC should be tried by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class, not a Sessions Court. The petitioners rely on the interpretation of Section 236 of the IBC and Section 435 of the Companies Act, 2013, as amended. The key fact is the legislative amendments to Section 435 of the Companies Act, which created two
…Sign in to view the parties.
Special Case No. 853/2020 instituted in the…
The court rese…
This is a writ petition filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Special Case No. 853/2020. The complaint was filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) under Sections 73(a) and 235A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The petitioners argue that the Additional Sessions Judge lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The core issue revolves around which court, either a Sessions Court or a Metropolitan/Judicial Magistrate Court, has the jurisdiction to try offenses under the IBC.
Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu and Ramesh Satyanarayan Malu, the petitioners, are facing a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) under Sections 73(a) and 235A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The complaint was filed in the Additional Sessions Judge's court. The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge to entertain the complaint, arguing that offenses under the IBC should be tried by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class, not a Sessions Court. The petitioners rely on the interpretation of Section 236 of the IBC and Section 435 of the Companies Act, 2013, as amended. The key fact is the legislative amendments to Section 435 of the Companies Act, which created two
…Special Case No. 853/2020 instituted in the…
The court rese…