SKILLSTECH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED  Vs REGISTRAR, NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI & ANR.

W.P.(C) 474/2021 Page 1 of 3
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13th January, 2021.
+ W.P.(C) 474/2021 & CM APPL. 1227/2021

SKILLSTECH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Swaroop George, Advocate
(M-9871144284)
versus
REGISTRAR, NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW
DELHI & ANR. ….. Respondent s
Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ,
CGSC with Mr. Akash Meena, Ms.
Kinjal Shrivastava & Mr. Varun
Kishore , Advocate s.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done by video conferencing.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking listing of
its petition , under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code , 2016,
before the appropriate bench of the N ational Company Law Tribunal
(hereinafter, “NCLT ”).
3. The case of the Petitioner is that the Registrar of the NCLT has failed to
even list the Petitioner’s matter before the appropriate b ench of NCLT , on the
ground that the threshold of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCLT has now
been amended by a notification dated 24th November, 2020 , from Rs.1 lakh ,
to Rs.1 crore.
4. Mr. George, ld. counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the question as
to whet her the NCLT has the pecuniary jurisdiction or not, cannot be decided
by the Registrar of the NCLT, but in fact the same ought to be looked into and
2021:DHC:141
W.P.(C) 474/2021 Page 2 of 3
determined by an appropriate b ench of the NCLT , after appreciating the fact
situation involved. Reliance is placed upon the view of the NCLT, Kochi in
IA No. 175/KOB/2020 in IBA/34/KOB/2020 titled M/s Tharakan Web
Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Cyriac Njavally , wherein the Tribunal has held that if
disputes had arisen prior to the outbreak of the pandemic, the said n otification
may not apply , as the notification cannot be made applicable retrospective ly.
5. Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan, ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent
submits that the said judgment of the NCLT, Kochi Bench has been stayed by
the Kerala High Court.
6. This court is of the opinion that the question as to whether the NCLT
has jurisdiction to entertain a particular case or not cannot be determined by
the Registrar in the administrative capacity. The Registrar would have to
place the matter before the appropriate b ench of the NCLT , for the said
question to be judicially determined . The appropr iate bench of the NCLT
would have to then, take a considered view as to whether notice is liable to be
issued in the matter or not.
7. The question as to whether the notification dated 24th March, 2020
applie s to a particular petition that has been filed prior to the said notification
or not is also a question to be determined by the Bench of the NCLT and not
by the Registrar of the Tribunal.
8. Accordingly, it is directed that the petition under section 9 of the IBC,
moved by the Petitioner before the NCLT, shall be placed by the Registrar,
NCLT before an appropriate bench for proceeding further in accordance with
law. The listing of the petition is directed to be done within a peri od of ten
days from today.
9. Advance intimation of listing of the said matter shall be given to the
2021:DHC:141
W.P.(C) 474/2021 Page 3 of 3
Petitioner’s counsel by the Registrar.
10. The present petition and all pending applications are disposed o f, in the
above terms.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
JANUARY 13, 2021
Rahul/ Ak
2021:DHC:141