Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1788 (MAD)

Abdul Rahim v. Golden Pipe Company

2017-06-22

G.JAYACHANDRAN

body2017
ORDER : Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the Learned Additional Subordinate Court, Trichirappalli to number the unnumbered I.P. in D.No. 584 of 2017 returned on 12.06.2017. 1. This Civil Revision petition is directed against the return of unnumbered insolvency petition in D.No.584 of 2017 presented before the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli. 2. While returning the said petition, learned Trial Judge has pointed out that since the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has came into force on 05.08.2016, there is a bar under Section 179 for the Civil Court and hence, any petition for insolvency relating to individual and firms shall be adjudicated only before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and there is no territorial jurisdiction for the Civil Court. In the light of provisions under Section 179 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 the learned Trial Judge has returned the application. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the said Code though came into force on 05.08.2015, the ouster section are not yet notified. Section 180(1) and (3) of the Code reads as under:- “180(1) No civil court or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter on which the Debt Recovery Tribunal or the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction under this Code. 180(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint: Provided that different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Code and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Code shall be construed as a reference to the commencement of that provision.” Therefore, the said petition, which was presented before the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli, was returned stating no jurisdiction for the Court over the subject matter, is not maintainable. Whether Section 180 of the Code notified or not is no where been found in the records. Therefore, this Court finds that the revision petitioner has not brought the said fact to the notice of the Sub-Court, Tiruchirappalli. 4. Accordingly, this Court giving liberty to the revision petitioner to represent the Insolvency petition, if Section 180 of the Code is not yet notified and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has not been ousted. Therefore, this Court finds that the revision petitioner has not brought the said fact to the notice of the Sub-Court, Tiruchirappalli. 4. Accordingly, this Court giving liberty to the revision petitioner to represent the Insolvency petition, if Section 180 of the Code is not yet notified and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has not been ousted. If such a representation is made by way of an affidavit, the Trial Court shall entertain the said Insolvency Petition, if the same is otherwise in order. 5. Accordingly, these Civil Revision petitions are disposed of. No costs.