# In the matter of Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu & Anr. Vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India & Anr. Writ Petition No. 2592 oF 2021

> HC judgment dated 2022-02-14. Citation: TCN-2022-HC-00061. This is a writ petition filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging an order…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 14 Feb 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-HC-00061
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/satyanarayan-bankatlal-malu-anr-vs-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-board-of-india-anr-240b1465

## Summary

### Background

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.

## Facts

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

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Additional Sessions Judge had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the …

**Ratio:** The ratio decidendi is that the Special Court which is to try offences under the I.B.

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the legislature, by amending Section 435 of the Companies Act,

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of Section 435 of the Companies Act, particularly the phrase

…

**Application:** The court applied the ratio and reasoning to the specific facts by holding that

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Sandeep K.…
- **Appellants:** Satyanarayan…
- **Respondents:** Insolvency and…

## Timeline

- **2020-01-01 — Special Case No.…**: Special Case No. 853/2020 instituted in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 58th…
- **2021-12-04 — Judgment Re…**: The court reserved its…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 73(a) — Punishment for false representations to…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-73)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/satyanarayan-bankatlal-malu-anr-vs-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-board-of-india-anr-240b1465