In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud alongside Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, dismissed a Special Leave Petition challenging an order issued by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in Chennai. The three-Judge Bench made a noteworthy observation emphasizing that the bar of limitation cannot be evaded or sidestepped through the utilization of Article 136 of the Constitution when a statutory appeal is readily available.
The Bench, while deliberating on the case, underscored that the impugned order fell within the appellate jurisdiction of the court as per Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution, asserting that such recourse was inappropriate when a statutory appeal avenue existed.
The dismissal of the petition was based on dual grounds – both the element of delay and the merits of the case. The court stated, “We accordingly decline to entertain the Special Leave Petitions only on that ground, leaving it open to the petitioner to adopt appropriate remedies in accordance with the law.”
Representing the petitioner(s) were Advocates Haripriya Padmanabhan, Shiju Abraham Verghis, V Shyamohan, Shivani Vij, Anshika Bajpai, and Tissy Annie Thomas from M/s. Kmnp Law. On the other side, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, supported by Advocates V Balachandran, Siddharth Naidu, and Prithvi Raj JS from M/s. Ksn & Co., served as counsels for the respondent(s).
The case in question, Gopal Krishnan MS & Anr. v. Ravindra Beleyur & Anr., marked as Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 2341/2023, delves into the intricate interplay between statutory appeals and the limitations imposed by legal provisions.
