IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.28376 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
BAKER HUGHES A GE COMPANY LLC INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICE AT 17021 ALDINE WESTFIELD ROAD, HOUSTON TEXAS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. ASHOK GURULINGAPPA RODAGI.
(By Mr. K. ARUN KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Mr. DEVASHISH MARWAH & Mr. ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT, ADVS.) AND:
1. TRIVENI TURBINE LIMITED … PETITIONER INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT A-44 HOSIERY COMPLEX, PHASE - II EXTENSION, NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH - 201305 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
2. GE TRIVENI LIMITED INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 12-A PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PEENYA BANGALORE, KARNATAKA- 560058 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
3. DI NETHERLANDS B V INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE NETHERLANDS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MARKENWEG 7 P O BOX 61 VARSSEVELD, 7050 AB, NETHERLANDS ALSO AT BERGSCHOT 69, 4817 PA BREDA NETHERLANDS REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
4. NUOVO PIGNONE INTERNATIONAL SRL PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS NUOVO PIGNONE SPA INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF ITALY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 2 VLA FELICE MATTEUCCI 2 FIRENZE. FI 50127 ITALY REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
5. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY INCORPORATED IN NEW YORK CITY AND HEADQUARTERED IN BOSTON AT 41 FARNSWORTH ST, BOSTON 02210-1236 MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
6. MASSIMILIANO MANESCHI PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VLA DEL PONTE SOSPESO, 15 FLORENCE 50142, ITALY.
7. THOMAS HERRMANN KURT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SENNHUETTENSTRASSE 33A BIRMENSDORF, ZURICH SWITZERLAND 8903C.
8. LUCA MARIA ROSSI PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VI DELLO STATUTO 4 FLORENCE 50129, ITALY.
9. VISHAL K. WANCHOO PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 915B ARALIAS DLF, PHASE 5 GURUGRAM - 122009 HARYANA, INDIA.
10. ASHISH BHANDARI PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO 1522 A THE MANGOLIAS DLF GOLF COURSE ROAD, PHASE 5 GALLERIA DLF IV GURGAON 122009 HARYANA INDIA.
11. JOHN LEONARD FLANNERY PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 75 OLMSTEAD HILROAD, WILTON CONNECTICUT 06897 UNITED STATES OF AMERCIA.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr. VIVEK HOLLA, ADV., FOR C/R1 Mr. S. VIJAY SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Mr. NANDISH PATEL, ADV., FOR R2) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED JUNE 12, 2019 PASSED BY THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, BENAGLURU BENCH IN C.P.NO.102 OF 2019 (ANNEXURE-A). RESTRAIN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU FROM SUBJECTING THE PETITIONER TO THE SAID PROCEEDINGS IN CP NO.102 OF 2019 BY DELCARING THAT THE NCLT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE PETITIONER IN CONTEXT OF THE CLAIMS RAISED IN CP NO.102 OF 2019, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Arun Kumar K., learned Senior counsel for Mr.Devashish Marwah and Mr.V.Aditya Vikram Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Vivek Holla, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Mr.S.Vijay Shankar, learned Senior counsel for Mr.Nandish Patel, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of the impugned order dated 12.06.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru as well as the writ of prohibition restraining the National Company Law Tribunal from subjecting the petitioner to the said proceedings in C.P.No.102/2019 by declaring that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the petitioner in context of claims raised in C.P.No.102/2019.
4. This Court, by an interim order dated 08.07.2019, after hearing the learned Senior counsel for the parties, had granted liberty to the petitioner to raise an issue of the jurisdiction before the Tribunal and had granted liberty to raise an objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as well as the power of the Tribunal to deal with the prayer for interim relief made by the respondents.
5. When the matter was taken up today, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 08.07.2019, the petitioner has filed an objection to the proceeding before the Tribunal on the ground of jurisdiction as well as an application seeking vacation of the ad interim order passed by the Tribunal.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to decide the objection preferred by the petitioner as well as the application submitted by the petitioner seeking vacation of the interim order in a time bound manner.
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to decide the application preferred by the petitioner in which an objection has been raised with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as well as the application filed by the petitioner seeking vacation of the ad interim order and to decide the same by a speaking order after hearing the parties within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. It will be open to the petitioner to contend before the Tribunal that the issue pertaining to jurisdiction is a pure question of law and therefore, can be decided at this stage. It is also made clear that it will be open to the respondent No.2 to assert that the question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be dealt with at this stage. The Tribunal shall thereupon deal with the objection raised by the petitioner by a speaking order after hearing the parties and shall decide the matter pertaining to jurisdiction. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of claims of the parties, as the applications are to be decided by the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall decide the applications filed by the petitioner on its own merit.
Sd/- JUDGE RV AAJ:
1.8.2019 W.P.No.28376/2019 (GM-RES) Order on I.A.No.3/2019 After hearing the learned counsel for parties, order dated 22.7.2019 passed by this Court is modified. In line No.14 of paragraph No.7, instead of ‘respondent No.2’, the word ‘respondent No.1’ is substituted.
This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 22.7.2019.
Accordingly, I.A.No.3/2019 is disposed of.
Order on I.A.No.2/2019 Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the time limit for deciding the objection be extended for a further period of two weeks. On account of personal inconvenience of the instructing counsel, the respondent No.1 could not file the objections.
The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the same amounts to misuse of process of law and a person who seeks an exparte order should be ready to argue the matter. It is further submitted that the interim order granted by this Court be vacated. Alternatively, it is submitted that in case this Court is inclined to extend the interim order, the same shall be on strict terms.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
It is trite law that on account of inadvertence on the part of the counsel, the party should not suffer. Bearing in mind the aforesaid statutory principle, it is directed that the time for deciding the application preferred by the petitioner is extended for a period of two weeks from 7.8.2019, the next date of hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall ensure that the application preferred by the petitioner shall positively be decided within a period of two weeks and no further adjournment at any cost shall be granted.
Accordingly, I.A.No.2/2019 is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE MD