Analysis:

Though the main object of the suit was for the recovery of money from the Respondents, the
Court seemed to have impliedly accepted the fact that there must be repayment of the default
amounts. The main point of contention for the present case seems to be one involving
jurisdiction of the Court under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code vis-a-vis the conflict
with simultaneous proceedings occurring for the same matter in a different country.
Since the Respondent was unable to attend the proceedings owing to the poor state of affairs
of the company, the Administrator in Bankruptcy of the company filed a written submission
to the Court in his capacity of Intervenor. Through the written submission, it was contended
that due to bankruptcy proceedings already taking place in the Netherlands on the same
matter, the NCLT in India had no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the present case. The peculiar
situation of commencement of two insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor in
different jurisdiction was the major point of contention and it was emphasized that this would
create confusion and delay.
Another contention put forth was the conflict that may arise due to the appointment of
different Interim Resolution Professionals by different Courts. This was a argued to be a
potential cause of impairment in the smooth functioning of the insolvency process and
against the interest of the stakeholders in the matter. The provisions of the IBC, specifically
Sections 234 and 235 were relied upon to prevent the Court from hearing the matter, The
provisions allowed certain arrangement and agreements to be made by the Government with
other countries in relation to insolvency proceedings, as well impose certain restrictions of
the initiation of such proceedings within India during such circumstances. However, such
provisions were not very persuasive as they are yet to be notified in the Official Gazette and
thus, do not have any legal validity. Lastly, the written submission also highlighted the fact
that the order given by the foreign Court was final and binding on the Corporate Debtor and
cannot be negated or superseded by the NCLT.
The Court dismissed the above contentions on the grounds that “there is no provision and
mechanism in the IBC, at this moment, to recognise the judgment of an insolvency court of
any Foreign Nation.” The Court regarded the order given by the Netherland Court as null ab-
initio and recognized the binding effect of the orders passed by the NCLT over that of an
order given in a foreign Court. However, the Court gave no exact reasoning as to why such
order given by the foreign Court was a nullity in the eyes of law since that Court was
competent in issuing such an order.
The Court also emphasized on the national importance of the matter at hand, which was a
major reason for the Court to adjudicate on the matter. Due to the large number of people
employed under the Respondent, it was paramount to resolve the insolvent in a expedient
manner. The Court looked into the objective of the IBC and an excerpt prepared by the
Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee of November 2015 which mandated that speedy justice
in cases of insolvency is essentially to uphold the ideals of bankruptcy laws. It was further
written that it would be an injustice to creditors and other stakeholders if the repayment
process was delayed by Courts.
The Court also relied on the case of Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs ICICI Bank and Ors. (AIR
2017 SC 4084) which comprehensively dealt with Section 7 of the IBC and Rule 4 of the
Insolvency and bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules,2016 which enlists
the procedural requirements for filing an insolvency procedure in Court. The Court
highlighted this judgement to further buttress its reasoning for providing quick relief to the
Petitioners in the present case. Based on this reasoning the Court recognized the need for it to
pass an order for repayment as efficiently as possible.