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.
C.R.P.(PD)No.1185 of 2017 R.Shajahan : Petitioner/Petitioner vs.
1.Anjaney Steels, Rep. by its Proprietor/Managing Directors, R./S.No.385/4&9A, Eripakkam, Mandagapattu Road, Palliputhupattu Village,Villupuram District.
2.Pulkit Metals Private Ltd., Rep. by its Proprietor/Managing Directors, R.S.No.438/2,3A,3B, 4&5, Eripakkam, Mandagapattu Road, Palliputhupattu Village, Villupuram District.
3.Pushpit Steels Private Ltd., Rep. by its Proprietor/Managing Directors, R.S.No.436/1-A. Eripakkam, Mandagapattu Road, Palliputhupattu Village, Villupuram District.
4.Meenakshi Steels, Rep. by its Proprietor/Managing Directors, R.S.No.9/2-B, T.Pidaripattu Village, T.V.Malai Road, Thirumangalam Post, Villupuram District.
5.Shankara Building Products Ltd., Rep. by its Proprietor/Managing Directors, 1-A/2C, Second Godown, C-Portion, Tanjore Main Road, Trichy.
6.Kannappan Iron and Steels Company Private Ltd., Rep. by its Proprietor/Managing Directors, 9/111, Kalidas Road, Ramnagar, Coimbatore.
7.Roja Trading Company, Rep. by its Proprietor/Managing Directors, 1-E, Shahul Hameediya Rich Mill Compounds, Ukkadai, Ariyamangalam, Trichy.
8.National Steels, Rep. by its Proprietor/Managing Directors, New No.43, Old No.21, Jones Street, Mannady, Chennai.
9.Pashupati Metallics, Rep. by its Proprietor/Managing Directors, S.No.14 and 15 Periyapuliyur Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvalluvar District.
10.Indian Steel Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor/Managing Directors, New No.70, Old No.54, sembudoss Street, Chennai.
11.Haji Stores, Rep. by its Proprietor/Managing Directors, B.O. 64-A, V.M.Pettai, Eda Street, Trichy.
12.SRM Marketing, Rep. by its Proprietor/Managing Directors, Old No.9, New No.17, Sembudoss Street, 2nd Floor, Chennai.
13.Abdul Salam,
14.Abdul,
15.Sadhik,
16.Musthapa,
17.Devid Kumar,
18.Audaiappan,
19.D.Ramachandran
20.Ramesh
21.Alex
22.Jeya Surya
23.Mani
24.Karuppusami Pandian
25.R.Muthu
26.Mudhaiya
27.Rajini
28.Verappan
29.Arul
30.Sendhil
31.Satyamoorthi
32.Marudhamani : Respondents/Respondents 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. 585 of 2017 returned on 12.06.2017.
!For Petitioner : Mr.T.Vadivelan For Respondent:
:COMMON ORDER 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 nowhere 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. 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.
To The Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli.
.