AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Oral Judgment : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):
The Appellant had earlier approached before this Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 181 / 2023, putting a challenge to the Impugned Order therein dated 16.01.2023, as it was passed in IA No. 57 / 2023 in CP (IB) / 17 / 9 / HDB / 2020 .
This Appellate Tribunal by Judgment of 07.07.2023, has passed the following Order, which is extracted hereunder:
``6. It is seen from the record that the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ has dismissed the ‘Application’ with Cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only). To prevent the aberration of ‘Justice’ and having regard to the fact that vide one of the reliefs sought for in IA No. 57 of 2023, the Applicant / Appellant had challenged the Order dated 20/09/2022, this ‘Tribunal’ is of the earnest view that the Cost imposed may be set aside. Without delving deep into the merits of the matter, a last and final opportunity be given to the Appellant herein to present his case before the Resolution Professional along with all relevant documentary evidence within a week from the date of pronouncement of this Order. Needless to add, the said decision is to be taken in a dispassionate manner, uninfluenced by any observations made in this Appeal. At the cost of repetition, this is the last opportunity being given to the ‘Appellant’ herein and it is made clear that no further ‘Applications’ / ‘Memos’ filed by the Applicant / Appellant herein would be entertained by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’’.
The Appellant contends and admits that, there had been a non-compliance of the direction issued by this Appellate Tribunal in its Judgment of 07.07.2023 and for its enforcement the appellant has filed an Application being IA (IBC) / 85 / 2024 in IA(IBC) / 57 / 2024 in CP(IB)/17/9/HDB/2020, before NCLT, Hyderabad Bench, by invoking the provisions of Section 60(5) of I & B Code, 2016.
The relief as modulated in the application, thus preferred by the appellant was to the following effect:
``To comply with the order dated 07.07.2023 of this Tribunal in the appeal filed by the appellant / applicant herein bearing Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 181 / 2023 and to pass further orders as this Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity’’.
This application has been rejected by the learned Adjudicating Authority by the Impugned Order dated 10.05.2024 which has now been put under challenge.
When a Statute contains a residuary provision, it is for covering a field or an action, which is otherwise not specifically covered under the Statute, and this the residuary provision comes to the rescue of an `Aggrieved Person’ for filing of an appropriate application under such residuary provision in matters of such uncovered field / action, in accordance with law.
But, when the field stands covered by specific statutory provision for the redressal of the grievance as sought for in the present context, as extracted herein above, the residuary provision in form of Section 60(5) of I & B Code, 2016, will not come into play for enforcement of the Judgment rendered by this Appellate Tribunal dated 07.07.2023, which was sought to be enforced before the learned Adjudicating Authority.
The aforesaid ratio with regards to what the impact of the residuary provisions under the Statute would be, and under what circumstance, such provisions could be invoked has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Judgment reported in State of U.P. v. Roshan Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 488, and the relevant Paragraph Nos. 7, 8 & 12 are extracted hereunder:
``7. The principles which regulate the exercise of inherent powers by a court have been highlighted in many cases. In matters with which the Code of Civil Procedure does not deal with, the court will exercise its inherent power to do justice between the parties which is warranted under the circumstances and which the necessities of the case require. If there are specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with the particular topic and they expressly or by necessary implication exhaust the scope of the powers of the court or the jurisdiction that may be exercised in relation to a matter, the inherent powers of the court cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by the Code of Civil Procedure. The inherent powers of the court are not to be used for the benefit of a litigant who has a remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure. Similar is the position vis-à-vis other statutes.
8.The object of Section 151 CPC is to supplement and not to replace the remedies provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 151 CPC will not be available when there is alternative remedy and the same is accepted to be a well-settled ratio of law. The operative field of power being thus restricted, the same cannot be risen to inherent power. The inherent powers of the court are in addition to the powers specifically conferred on it. If there are express provisions covering a particular topic, such power cannot be exercised in that regard. The section confers on the court power of making such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice of the court. Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked when there is express provision even under which the relief can be claimed by the aggrieved party. The power can only be invoked to supplement the provisions of the Code and not to override or evade other express provisions. The position is not different so far as the other statutes are concerned. Undisputedly, an aggrieved person is not remediless under the Act.
12.Looked at from any angle the orders of the High Court impugned in these appeals cannot be sustained and are set aside. It is to be noted that subsequent two writ petitions were allowed primarily on the ground that first writ petition was allowed.’’
In the aforesaid Judgment, it has been provided that, when the Statute covers a particular field and it provides for the redressal of a grievance, then the residuary provision would not be attracted for the redressal of the grievances and particularly in the instant case, where the appellant, by virtue of the IA preferred under Section 60(5) of I & B Code, 2016, before the learned Adjudicating Authority, sought for execution of the Judgment dated 07.07.2023, even though the Statute has provided for instruments for execution of such Judgments.
For the reasons stated above, the application itself, which was preferred before the learned Adjudicating Authority was not tenable, and therefore, the rejection of the same by the Impugned Order cannot be said to be contrary to the intention of law.
Thus, the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 281 / 2024, would stand dismissed with the liberty left open for the Appellant to resort to an appropriate remedy as available to him under law for the purposes of relief sought for in the Interlocutory Application preferred by him before the learned Adjudicating Authority.