The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) in its order had made a clear ruling that the MCA will be made a party to all Insolvency and Bankruptcy Proceedings (“IBC”). The Appellate Tribunal however opined differently, thereby quashing the NCLT order. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), in its understanding, passed that the NCLT’s directive was merely “beyond power” and amounted to “imposition of a new rule in a compelling fashion” .
The NCLT and NCLAT were now at war-footing for they opined antithetically. The NCLT was of the opinion that MCA should be made party to all IBC cases so as to maintain a dependable record and to loop the officers of the MCA for due gratitude of all matters whatsoever. Whereas, NCLAT discoursed completely different connoting that it would be absolute counter-productiveness to involve MCA in IBC matters without giving them a chance to present themselves. Also, it would plain mean a lapse in justice drawn. The NCLAT drew that MCA needn’t have to be made party to all Section 7, 8 and 9 applications of the Companies Act unless it is of absolute necessity. Although MCA has been an integral part in the making of the IBC, a bureaucratic wrangle “material irregularity and patent illegality in the eye of Law.” The quashing down of the NCLT order by the NCLAT was a win-win for the MCA and its officials given it was merely bogging them down in terms of workload pressure.
The Contractual Biography of an Arbitrator: Is an Arbitrator bound to decide as per the Terms of the Contract?
Powers of an Arbitrator Concerning the Terms of a Contract The Male, Pale and Stale of a Contract It was a Monday in 2014 on