Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Manisha Nimesh Mehta, as promoter and guarantor of M/s. Perfect Infraengineers Ltd., filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging various legal provisions and seeking to quash orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The petition arrayed 25 respondents, including the Technology Development Board, ICICI Bank, judicial members of NCLT, and various government ministries. The petitioner sought declarations that Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 is unconstitutional, that the NCLT members were coram non judice, and that provisions of SARFAESI Act, RDB Act, and IBC are unconstitutional. The court heard extensive oral submissions from the petitioner's counsel for nearly three hours. The respondents, including the Technology Development Board, ICICI Bank, and the Resolution Professional, appeared and filed submissions. The court found that the petition was a gross abuse of process, as the petitioner had alternative remedies available under the IBC and other laws. The court noted that the challenge to judicial immunity was frivolous and that the MSMED Act does not bar proceedings under other enactments. The court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to be paid to the Bombay High Court Legal Services Committee.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Immunity - Section 3 Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 - Challenge to constitutional validity - Petitioner sought declaration that Section 3 is unconstitutional as it affords absolute immunity to judicial officers even when they act unfairly - Court held that the petition is an abuse of process and the challenge is frivolous, as judicial immunity is essential for independent functioning of judiciary (Paras 1-10).
B) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Maintainability of Petition - Section 7 IBC - Petitioner challenged NCLT orders admitting CIRP against her company - Court held that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative remedies under IBC, and the challenge to Section 7 is without merit (Paras 11-20).
C) MSMED Act - Jurisdiction - Sections 9, 10 MSMED Act, 2006 - Petitioner claimed that being an MSME, no recovery proceedings lie under SARFAESI Act, RDB Act, or IBC - Court held that the MSMED Act does not oust the jurisdiction of other forums, and the petitioner's interpretation is erroneous (Paras 21-25).
D) Civil Procedure - Abuse of Process - Petitioner arrayed 25 respondents including judicial officers and government authorities - Court held that the petition is a gross abuse of process and dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 (Paras 26-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, and seeking to quash NCLT orders under Section 7 of IBC, is maintainable and whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to be paid to the Bombay High Court Legal Services Committee.
Law Points
- Judicial immunity
- maintainability of writ petition
- abuse of process of law
- jurisdiction of NCLT under IBC
- MSMED Act not ousting IBC
- SARFAESI Act and RDB Act ouster of civil court jurisdiction
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (12) 2003
Writ Petition (L) No. 33593 of 2024
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Ashwin D. Bhobe
Mr. Mathew Nedumpara a/w Ms. Hemali Merva (Petitioner), Mr. Prashant Kamble a/w Mr. Himashu Takke (State), Mr. Sumedh Ruikar a/w Mr. Viraj Shelatkar (Respondent Nos.1-6), Mr. Anshul Anjarlekar (Respondent No.7), Mr. Yahya Batatawala a/w Ms. Shneha Mishra (Respondent No.18)
Mrs. Manisha Nimesh Mehta
Technology Development Board & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging constitutional validity of Section 3 of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and seeking to quash NCLT orders under Section 7 of IBC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought declarations that Section 3 of Judges (Protection) Act is unconstitutional, that NCLT members are coram non judice, that provisions of SARFAESI Act, RDB Act, and IBC are unconstitutional, and to quash NCLT orders dated 15.07.2024 and 29.10.2024.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that she was denied justice by NCLT and that the recovery proceedings by ICICI Bank and Technology Development Board were illegal.
Previous Decisions
NCLT Mumbai Bench-1 passed orders dated 15.07.2024 and 29.10.2024 in CP(IB) No.322/2023 under Section 7 of IBC.
Issues
Whether the writ petition challenging Section 3 of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 is maintainable?
Whether the NCLT orders under Section 7 of IBC can be quashed in this writ petition?
Whether the MSMED Act bars proceedings under SARFAESI Act, RDB Act, and IBC?
Whether the petition is an abuse of process?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Section 3 of Judges (Protection) Act is unconstitutional as it gives absolute immunity to judicial officers.
Petitioner argued that NCLT members were biased and lacked jurisdiction.
Petitioner argued that being an MSME, no recovery proceedings lie under SARFAESI Act, RDB Act, or IBC.
Respondents argued that the petition is frivolous and an abuse of process, and that the petitioner has alternative remedies.
Ratio Decidendi
The petition is a gross abuse of process and not maintainable. The challenge to judicial immunity is frivolous. The MSMED Act does not oust the jurisdiction of other forums. The petitioner has alternative remedies under the IBC and other laws.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner has put forth the following prayers in this Writ Petition :-
Pursuant to the above, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court has placed this matter before this Bench.
Procedural History
The petition was initially listed before a bench on 12.11.2024 which directed that it should not be listed before that bench. On 13.11.2024, another bench recorded that it would not be listed before that bench. The Chief Justice then placed it before the present bench. On 27.11.2024, the court heard the petitioner's counsel for three hours and permitted respondents to file replies. The matter was then posted on 04.12.2024 for receiving submissions. Final order was pronounced on 20.12.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Judges (Protection) Act, 1985: Section 3
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 7, Sections 63, 231
- Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006: Sections 9, 10
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: Section 13, Section 34
- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993: Section 19, Section 34
