Global Law Experts Logo

Find a Global Law Expert

Specialism
Country
Practice Area
awardsr

Awards

Since 2010, the Global Law Experts annual awards have been celebrating excellence, innovation and performance across the legal communities from around the world.

Section 60 (5) of the IBC: An unresolved conundrum

posted 3 years ago

Introduction

  • The National Company Law Tribunal’s (“NCLT“) jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC“) has often been invoked as a comprehensive recourse to all issues concerning a corporate debtor undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP“) or liquidation. In recent times, the Supreme Court has had the occasion to opine on the scope and extent of NCLT’s jurisdiction under Section 60(5) in the judgments of M/s Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (“Embassy”) and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Amit Kumar Gupta and Ors. (“Gujarat Urja”) wherein it would appear that the Supreme Court has recognized the limitations inherent to the NCLT’s powers thereunder.
  • In this article however, we argue that the Supreme Court’s decisions have left a number of questions unanswered and the desired finality to the conundrum of Section 60(5) may perhaps still be elusive.

The Problem Statement

  • Section 60(5) is widely worded. Clause (a) covers any applications or proceedings by or against the corporate debtor, clause (b) covers any claims by or against the corporate debtor and its Indian subsidiaries and clause (c) covers all questions of law or facts arising out of or relating to the insolvency resolution or liquidation of the corporate debtor. One could therefore argue that Section 60(5) makes the NCLT a one stop solution for everything concerning a corporate debtor.
  • However, a reading of certain other provisions of the IBC militates against the aforesaid argument. Notably:
    • Section 25(2)(b) mandates that the corporate debtor be represented by its resolution professional before any court, tribunal or other authority against third parties for preservation and protection of its assets. If the intention of the legislature was that all disputes by or against the corporate debtor were to be entertained by the NCLT, the words “any court, tribunal or other authority” contained in Section 25(2)(b) would be rendered otiose.
    • Section 14(1)(a) prohibits institution of suits and continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor. While there is a bar on institution / continuation of suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor, that bar does not extend to the institution or continuation of proceedings by the corporate debtor. In fact, for the purpose of the protection and preservation of assets of the corporate debtor under the provisions of Section 25(2)(b), the resolution professional may well be required to continue or initiate suits or legal proceedings before the appropriate fora (suits being instituted before a civil court).
    • Section 63 provides that no civil court or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of “any matter over which” the NCLT or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT“) have jurisdiction under the IBC, meaning thereby that that the legislature perhaps envisaged proceedings which would not fall within the jurisdiction of the NCLT or NCLAT.

The Supreme Court decisions in Embassy and Gujarat Urja

The Decision in Embassy
  • The dispute in Embassy arose because a proposal by the resolution professional seeking extension of mining lease granted to the corporate debtor was rejected by the Government of Karnataka on the ground that the corporate debtor had violated certain provisions relating to the mining lease. An application was preferred by the resolution professional before the NCLT seeking setting aside of the Government’s decision to reject the proposal for extension and a direction to the Government to extend the lease. One of the grounds on which the Government opposed the grant of any reliefs by the NCLT was that the NCLT did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes arising out of the grant of mining leases under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (“MMDR Act“). The NCLT passed an order against the Government (i) setting aside its order rejecting the proposal for extension of the mining lease, and (ii) directing it to enter into a supplemental lease with the corporate debtor for an extended period. This order passed by the NCLT was challenged in writ proceedings initiated by the Government before the High Court of Karnataka, wherein the High Court granted a stay on the NCLT’s order. This stay order was challenged before the Supreme Court of India.
  • One of the arguments raised by the Government of Karnataka before the Supreme Court (to emphasise that the order passed by the NCLT was a nullity) was that the jurisdiction of the NCLT is confined to judicial matters only, whereas an order passed by a statutory/ quasijudicial authority under a special enactment such as the MMDR Act falls within the realm of public law and that the NCLT has no power of judicial review over such orders.
  • The Supreme Court held that the land forming subject matter of the lease in question belongs to the State of Karnataka, and that the relationship between the corporate debtor and the Government under the lease was not just contractual but statutorily governed. The Supreme Court thus held that the decision of the Government to refuse deemed extension of the lease was in public law domain and that the “correctness of the said decision can be called into question only in a superior court which is vested with the power of review over administrative action. The NCLT, being a creature of special statute to discharge certain specific functions, cannot be elevated to the status of a superior court having the power of judicial review over administrative action”.
  • The Supreme Court further observed that clause (c) of Section 60(5) was very broad in its ambit “but a decision taken by the government or a statutory authority in relation to a matter which is in the realm of public law, cannot by any stretch of imagination be brought within the fold of the phrase “arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution” appearing in Clause (c) of Sub-section (5)” . Interestingly, the Supreme Court did not delve into the issue as to whether such a decision taken by the government or a statutory authority would fall within clause (a) of Section 60(5) which gives the NCLT the jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of ‘any application or proceeding by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person’, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force.
  • The Supreme Court thus concluded that the NCLT did not have the jurisdiction to entertain an application against the Government and since the NCLT exercised jurisdiction that it did not have, the High Court of Karnataka was justified in entertaining the writ petition on the basis that the NCLT was ‘coram non judice’.
The Decision in Gujarat Urja
  • Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (“GUVNL“), the appellant, had issued notice of termination of power purchase agreement entered into between itself and the corporate debtor (“PPA“) on the ground that the CIRP of the corporate debtor had begun, amounting to an ‘event of default’ under the PPA. This notice was challenged before the NCLT and an injunction was sought restraining GUVNL from terminating the PPA. The NCLT passed an order restraining GUVNL from terminating the PPA and setting aside the notice of termination. When the matter went into appeal, the NCLAT also decided against GUVNL holding that the PPA could not be terminated solely on the ground of initiation of CIRP of the corporate debtor. The matter finally reached the Supreme Court where two issues arose, i.e. (i) whether the NCLT and the NCLAT can exercise jurisdiction under the IBC over disputes arising from contracts such as the PPA and (ii) whether GUVNL’s right to terminate the PPA according to the provisions of the PPA is regulated by the IBC.
  • To address these questions, the Supreme Court examined the contours of jurisdiction conferred upon the NCLT under Section 60(5). Interestingly though, in doing so, the Supreme Court limited itself to clause (c) of the provision. Considering the text of Section 60(5)(c) and other similar provisions in other insolvency related statutes, the Supreme Court noted that the NCLT has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes which arise solely from or which relate to the insolvency of the corporate debtor. However, the Supreme Court issued a note of caution to the NCLT and NCLAT “to ensure that they do not usurp the legitimate jurisdiction of other courts, tribunals and fora when the dispute is one which does not arise solely from or relate to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor. The nexus with the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor must exist”.
  • The Supreme Court held that the dispute in the instant matter solely arose out of and related to the insolvency of the corporate debtor. The Supreme Court also elaborated upon the distinction between disputes arising out of or relating to insolvency resolution with other disputes and held:
    • “72. Therefore, we hold that the RP can approach the NCLT for adjudication of disputes that are related to the insolvency resolution process. However, for adjudication of disputes that arise dehors the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor, the RP must approach the relevant competent authority. For instance, if the dispute in the present matter related to the non-supply of electricity, the RP would not have been entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the NCLT under the IBC. However, since the dispute in the present case has arisen solely on the ground of the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor, NCLT is empowered to adjudicate this dispute under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC.” (emphasis supplied)
  • Distinguishing the facts of this matter with that in Embassy, the Supreme Court noted that in the present case the decision to terminate the PPA was not taken by “any governmental or statutory authority acting within the domain of its public law functions”, but the decision was “simply taken by a contracting party solely on account of the initiation of insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor in terms of an agreement between the parties”. The Supreme Court also contrasted the facts of the present matter with those in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Abhilash Lal wherein the lease with the corporate debtor was terminated by a municipal corporation on the grounds of other defaults unrelated to the insolvency of the corporate debtor. In relation to the non-obstante clause in Section 238 of the IBC, the Supreme Court observed that the word “instrument” used therein does include a contract. The Supreme Court concluded that since the PPA in the instant case was sought to be terminated only on the ground that the corporate debtor had become subject of insolvency proceedings under the Code, such termination was not valid.
  • The Supreme Court held that the NCLT, under Section 60(5)(c), had the power to restrain GUVNL from terminating the PPA, recognizing that the PPA was central to the success of the CIRP of the corporate debtor. Since the termination was solely on the ground of insolvency of the corporate debtor, the dispute was held to be within the provisions of Section 60(5)(c). The Supreme Court also observed that such jurisdiction of the NCLT cannot be invoked in matters where a termination takes place on grounds unrelated to the insolvency of the corporate debtor.

Analysis of the Supreme Court Decisions, Some Observations and Open Issues

  • A joint reading of the decisions in Embassy and Gujarat Urja would show that the Supreme Court has recognized that the jurisdiction of the NCLT under Section 60(5) is not unlimited. While these decisions, on the one hand, have cleared the air on some critical issues, many questions still remain open.
  • One of the most striking aspects of Embassy and Gujarat Urja is that the analysis of NCLT’s jurisdiction is limited to provisions of clause (c) of Section 60(5). The Supreme Court does not seem to have considered the meaning and interpretation of clause (a) of the Section, which appears to be much wider in its scope than clause (c) and which, by its very language, gives the NCLT jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of all applications or proceedings by or against the corporate debtor notwithstanding any other law for the time being in force. Interestingly, even the arguments advanced by parties before the Supreme Court in both matters seem to be limited to clause (c) of the provision and it may be for this reason that the Supreme Court has arrived at its decisions exclusively based on clause (c). Perhaps, the Supreme Court may have decided these cases differently, had it been called upon to consider clause (a) of Section 60(5) as well. Evidently, both cases involve applications/ proceedings by the corporate debtor. Therefore, had Section 60(5)(a) been invoked, a case could have been made out in favour of NCLT having jurisdiction to entertain both these cases.
  • According to the decisions in Embassy and Gujarat Urja, only those issues that arise out of or relate to the insolvency resolution process of the corporate debtor can be determined by the NCLT, and the NCLT while doing so is expected to be careful to not oust jurisdiction of any other court or tribunal. The natural corollary to that principle is that any issue that does not arise out of, or relate to insolvency resolution process of the corporate debtor, is to be decided upon by other courts, tribunals and authorities that have legitimate jurisdiction over the subject matter. This creates an anomalous situation because under Section 14(1)(a) of IBC, institution of suits and continuation of pending suits and proceedings is prohibited during the insolvency resolution process period. So, if there is a dispute between the corporate debtor and a third party which does not arise out of or relate to the insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor, such third party would have no remedy since it can neither approach a civil court or authority nor can it approach the NCLT. For example, in the event there is a breach or default on part of the corporate debtor which is de hors the insolvency process, the counter party has no recourse in the form of institution of a suit against the corporate debtor, going by the dicta in Embassy and Gujarat Urja. Even after the conclusion of the CIRP or liquidation, such third party will find it extremely difficult to pursue its claims against the corporate debtor. The third party is thus effectively rendered remediless against the corporate debtor.
  • Some other open issues which the Supreme Court did not have the occasion to consider in Embassy and Gujarat Urja can be summarised as follows:
    • Under Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013, the NCLT and NCLAT, for the purpose of discharging their functions under the IBC, have powers as vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including examination of evidence and taking evidence on oath, etc. Given the ambit of Section 424, perhaps an argument can be made that the powers of NCLT under Section 60(5) are much wider than envisaged under Embassy and Gujarat Urja.
    • However, it would be an equal consideration that the applications before the NCLT are required to be disposed of in a time bound manner given the limited time period for completion of the processes under the IBC. This becomes relevant especially in the context of the desirability of NCLT being called upon to decide complex questions of fact in a short period of time. Therefore, any interpretation which accords comprehensive powers to the NCLT under Section 60(5) would militate against the object of the IBC, namely, time bound resolution.

Conclusion

While the bare text of Section 60(5) would point towards very wide powers, the Supreme Court in Embassy and Gujarat Urja has emphasized upon the limitations which are inherent to the NCLT’s jurisdiction. However, it would appear that the attention of the Supreme Court has not been drawn to several critical and important provisions within the IBC and the Companies Act, 2013. It would therefore be a strong argument that both these decisions are limited in their scope and application. The Supreme Court would probably require another occasion to deal with the other relevant provisions of law to determine the extent of NCLT’s powers under Section 60(5). Perhaps the legislature may in the meanwhile deem it fit to clarify the legal position by way of an amendment. However, till then, there still remains a substantial cloud on the extent to which the NCLT can interfere by way of the provisions of Section 60(5) and this continues to remain an unresolved conundrum.

 

Footnote

[1] Civil Appeal No. 9170 of 2019 with Civil Appeal Nos. 9171 and 9172 of 2019.

[2] Civil Appeal No. 9241 of 2019.

[3] Paragraph 28 of Embassy.

[4] Paragraph 36 of Embassy.

[5] Paragraph 67 of Gujarat Urja.

[6] Paragraph 75 of Gujarat Urja.

[7] (2020) 13 SCC 234.

[8] Under Section 33(5) of the IBC, after passing of order of liquidation, no suit or other legal proceeding can be instituted against the corporate debtor.

[9] According to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Through the Director & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1554 of 2021 and Civil Appeal No. 1550-1553 of 2021, all prior claims against the Corporate Debtor are extinguished upon the approval of the resolution professional.

 

This article was originally published in Mondaq on 18 August 2021 Co-written by: Ameya Gokhale, Partner; Radhika Indapurkar, Senior Associate. 

Contributed by: Ameya Gokhale, Partner; Radhika Indapurkar, Senior Associate

Click here for original article

Disclaimer

This is intended for general information purposes only. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author/authors and does not necessarily reflect the views of the firm.

Find the right Legal Expert for your business

The premier guide to leading legal professionals throughout the world

Specialism
Country
Practice Area
LAWYERS RECOGNIZED
0
EVALUATIONS OF LAWYERS BY THEIR PEERS
0 m+
PRACTICE AREAS
0
COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD
0

Join

who are already getting the benefits
0
Sign up for the latest legal briefings and news within Global Law Experts’ community, as well as a whole host of features, editorial and conference updates direct to your email inbox. Naturally you can unsubscribe at any time.

Online Casino Reviews

  • Freeroll Poker Tournaments For Real Money
  • Australian Online Casino Real Money
  • Best Slot App To Win Real Money
  • Online Casino Real Money Australia
  • Best Paying Online Pokies
  • Wizard Of Oz Online Slots
  • All Slots Casino Mobile
  • Best Online Poker App Real Money
  • Best Online Casino To Play Roulette
  • Is Online Casino Legal
  • Online Casino That Accepts Paypal
  • Play Roulette For Real Money
  • Slot Apps To Win Real Money
  • Real Money Slots Online Usa
  • Safe Online Casino
  • Wizard Of Oz Slots
  • Real Online Pokies Nz
  • Biggest Online Casino In The World
  • Online Casino Pay With Paypal
  • Online Casino That Accept Paypal
  • Online Casino Canada Real Money
  • 3 Card Poker Online Real Money
  • Online Slots Real Money Canada
  • Best Online Poker Sites For Real Money
  • Real Money Poker App Android Usa
  • How To Make Money From Online Casino Bonuses
  • Real Money Poker App Iphone
  • How To Play Blackjack Online For Real Money
  • Best Slots To Play
  • Top 10 Online Pokies
  • Best Poker Apps Real Money
  • Online Casino Legal
  • Best Payout Online Casino Uk
  • Win Money Online Slots
  • Online Poker Nj Real Money
  • How To Win Online Slots
  • Casino Gaming License
  • Play Real Pokies Online
  • Blackjack Sites For Real Money
  • Real Money Casino Games For Android
  • Best New Online Slots
  • Flaming 777 Slots Games
  • Online Blackjack With Live Dealers
  • How To Play Online Slots
  • Facebook Casino Games Real Money
  • Online Casino With No Minimum Deposit
  • How To Beat Online Slots
  • Online Casino License
  • The Big Payback Slots
  • Royal Vegas Online Casino Withdrawal
  • Online Casino Minimum Deposit 5
  • Online Pokies Real Money Australia
  • Las Vegas Usa Online Casino
  • Real Money Poker App Android
  • Wheel Of Fortune Slots
  • Game Of Thrones Slots
  • Online Poker Real Money Usa Legal
  • Best Online Casino European Roulette
  • Blackjack Online Real Money Paypal
  • Online Video Poker Real Money Usa
  • How To Create An Online Casino
  • Lucky Nugget Online Casino Mobile
  • How To Withdraw Money From Online Casino
  • Platinum Play Online Casino Download
  • Online Casino For Usa Players
  • Best Online Casino Usa Real Money
  • Online Roulette Real Money Usa
  • Best Real Money Poker Sites
  • Android Slots Real Money
  • How To Start An Online Casino Business
  • How To Start An Online Casino
  • How To Start An Online Gambling Site
  • Best Online Casino For Blackjack
  • Play Baccarat Online For Money
  • Online Pokies New Zealand
  • Best Slots To Play At Golden Nugget
  • Slots Of Vegas Online Casino
  • Best Online Pokies Site
  • How To Beat Online Roulette
  • New Zealand Online Pokies
  • Online Poker Mobile Real Money
  • Which Online Slots Payout The Most
  • Is Online Casino Legal In India
  • Online Casino Software For Sale
  • Best Online Casino For Craps
  • Hard Rock Casino Slots
  • Win Real Money Online Pokies
  • Online Casino With Highest Payout Percentage
  • Poker Apps With Real Money
  • Online Roulette Real Money Review
  • Full Tilt Poker Real Money
  • Online Casino 5 Dollar Minimum Deposit
  • Online Roulette With Real Money
  • Best Online Roulette For Real Money
  • I Migliori Casino Online Italiani
  • Best Payout Online Slots
  • How To Play Baccarat Online
  • Play Casino Card Game Online
  • Play Blackjack Online For Real Money
  • Best Paying Online Slots
  • Casino License Cost
  • Online Poker Real Money California
  • Safe Online Casino Australia
  • Online Roulette Australia Real Money
  • Online Poker Real Money Texas
  • Online Roulette Real Money Paypal
  • Online Slots Australia Real Money
  • Golden Nugget Online Casino Review
  • Casino Games To Win Real Money
  • Online Pokies Australia Real Money
  • Online Gambling Blackjack Real Money
  • Win Real Money Playing Slots
  • How To Win Roulette Online
  • Aristocrat Pokies Online Real Money
  • Hollywood Casino Online Slots
  • Play Online Keno For Real Money
  • What's The Best Online Casino
  • Triple Double Diamond Slots
  • Play Roulette Online With Real Money
  • Roulette Online For Real Money
  • Play Roulette Online Real Money
  • Best Online Pokies Real Money
  • Big Red Pokies Online
  • How To Win At Online Blackjack
  • What Is The Best Online Roulette Site
  • Real Money Online Pokies
  • Spin To Win Slots
  • Ruby Slots Online Casino
  • Wheel Of Fortune Online Casino
  • Spin Palace Flash Casino Online
  • Online Poker Real Money App
  • Online Casino With Paypal Deposit
  • How To Win At Online Roulette
  • Can You Win Real Money On Slot Apps
  • Is Ignition Casino Safe
  • Online Casino Blackjack Real Money
  • Online Casino Win Real Money Usa
  • How To Make Money Online Casino
  • Online Casino Real Money Reviews
  • Slot Games To Win Real Money
  • Jackpot City Online Casino Download
  • Online Pokies Real Money
  • Casino War Online Real Money
  • Online Casino No Minimum Deposit
  • Play Wheel Of Fortune Slots Online
  • Best Online Casino Game To Win Money
  • Online Casino Without Wagering Requirements
  • Online Slots For Real Money Usa
  • Legal Online Casino Australia
  • How Do Online Slots Work
  • Best Online Casino For Us Players
  • Online Play Casino Roulette Game
  • Online Blackjack Real Money Australia
  • Real Casino Games Real Money Online
  • Online Slot Machines Real Money Paypal
  • The Best Online Casino For Roulette
  • What Online Casino Pays Out The Most
  • Start Your Own Online Casino
  • Legal Online Casino
  • Online Live Roulette Casino Game
  • Playing Blackjack Online For Real Money
  • Online Penny Slots Real Money
  • Best Online Blackjack For Money
  • How To Win Online Roulette
  • Real Money Poker Sites Usa
  • Best Time To Play Slots
  • Online Keno For Real Money
  • Best Payout Online Slots Uk
  • Online Slots Real Money Reviews
  • Best Online Pokies Nz
  • What States Allow Online Gambling
  • Best Real Money Poker App
  • Online Slots To Win Real Money
  • Real Money Slots App Iphone
  • Jackpot City Flash Casino Online
  • Ignition Casino Legit
  • All Star Slots Casino
  • How To Play Online Casino
  • Real Time Gaming Slots
  • Online Video Poker Real Money
  • How To Play Roulette Online For Money
  • How To Win On Online Slots
  • Age Of Gods Slots
  • Online Real Casino Money Games
  • Best Online Slots To Play
  • Online Poker California Real Money
  • Is Jackpot City Casino Legit
  • How To Win At Online Slots
  • Play Poker For Real Money
  • Safe Online Pokies Australia
  • Best Way To Play Slots
  • How To Play Casino Online
  • Play Online Roulette For Money
  • Online Casino Australia Real Money
  • Which States Allow Online Gambling
  • Play Keno Online Real Money
  • How To Win Online Blackjack
  • Online Blackjack With Real Dealers
  • How To Open Online Casino
  • What Are The Best Online Slots To Play
  • Big Win Casino Slots
  • Spin Palace Online Casino Australia
  • Best Slots To Win On
  • Casino Slots Win Real Money
  • Slots Magic Online Casino
  • Blackjack Online For Real Money
  • Slot Machine App Win Real Money
  • Online Casino Not Paying Out
  • Slots That Pay Out Real Money
  • Online Pokies Australia Reviews
  • Online Casino Minimum Deposit 1
  • Jackpot City Online Casino Review
  • Live Dealer Baccarat Online Casino
  • Online Casino Apps For Android
  • Online Casino Paypal Deposit Australia
  • Online Casino With Live Dealer
  • How To Play Blackjack Online
  • Slots To Win Real Money
  • Wheel Of Fortune Online Slots
  • Play Quick Hit Slots Online
  • Can You Count Cards In Online Blackjack
  • Palace Of Chance Online Casino
  • How To Play Roulette Online
  • Good Slots To Play
  • Which Online Casino Pays Out The Most
  • Heart Of Vegas Casino Slots
  • Best Online Casino For Canadians
  • Australian Online Pokies Real Money
  • Mohegan Sun Online Casino Nj
  • Online Casino Live Games Best Uk
  • Best Online Casino Australia Reviews
  • Play Pokies Online Real Money
  • Best Online Casino For Usa Players
  • How To Win Online Casino
  • Play Blackjack For Real Money
  • Best Slots On Bovada
  • Online Keno Real Money Usa
  • Online Slots Real Money Paypal
  • Best Poker Sites For Real Money
  • Safe Casino Sites
  • The Best Online Slots
  • Play Keno For Real Money
  • Real Online Pokies Australia
  • Queen Of The Nile Slots
  • Mummys Gold Casino Online Casino
  • Play Keno Online For Real Money
  • Best Poker Websites Real Money
  • Lucky Nugget Online Casino Download
  • Best Online Casino For Roulette
  • Play Roulette For Money Online
  • Video Slots Mobile Casino
  • Best Time To Play Online Slots
  • Best Real Money Online Poker
  • Play Blackjack Online With Friends
  • Play Baccarat Online For Real Money
  • Is Silver Oak Casino Legit
  • Big Fish Casino Real Money
  • Can You Win Real Money On Caesars Slots
  • Game Of Thrones Slots Casino
  • Best Online Slots Payout Percentage
  • Play Online Pokies For Real Money
  • Play Pokies Online Australia
  • High 5 Casino Real Slots
  • The Best Online Pokies
  • Online Pokies That Accept Paypal
  • Heart Of Vegas Slots
  • How To Play Online Roulette
  • Best Poker App Real Money
  • Best Online Casino Fast Payout
  • Best Slots At Wind Creek Casino
  • Online Casino 10 Minimum Deposit
  • Play Roulette Online For Money
  • Us Real Money Poker Sites
  • How To Win In Online Casino
  • Best Online Pokies Australia Review
  • Where To Play Roulette Online For Real Money
  • How To Beat Online Casino Slot Machines
  • Highest Payout Online Slots
  • Best Paying Online Casino Slots
  • Golden Tiger Online Casino Review
  • Online Casino With Live Dealers
  • Play Roulette Online For Real Money
  • Best Slots To Play At Casino
  • Slot Machine Games Win Real Money
  • Most Popular Online Casino Games
  • Casino Slots App Real Money
  • Online Casino Real Money Canada
  • Online Real Money Pokies
  • Online Roulette Game Real Money
  • Online Casino Roulette Real Money
  • Best Place To Play Roulette Online
  • Online Casino Book Of Ra Paypal
  • Online Blackjack With Real Money
  • Play Online Blackjack For Real Money
  • Is There A Slot Machine App For Real Money
  • Royal Vegas Online Casino App
  • Best Casino Slots To Play
  • Most Popular Online Slots
  • Best Way To Win At Slots
  • Slots You Can Win Real Money
  • Play Roulette Online Real Money Usa
  • Online Casino Real Money Paypal
  • Online Casino Australia Legal
  • Treasures Of Troy Slots
  • Online Casino For Us Players
  • Where Can I Play Blackjack Online For Real Money
  • Online Casino Paypal Book Of Ra
  • Online Roulette For Real Money
  • Best Online Blackjack Real Money
  • Poker App For Real Money
  • Jackpot Magic Slots Facebook
  • Best Online Casino Real Money Usa
  • Best Online Casino New Zealand
  • The Four Kings Casino And Slots
  • How To Play Slots Online
  • Best Online Pokies Australia
  • Usa Online Slots Real Money
  • Real Money Casino Android App
  • Online Slot Machines That Pay Real Money
  • Online Pokies Real Money Nz
  • Online Pokies Real Money App
  • Play Igt Slots Online
  • Best Casino Slots To Win Money
  • Online Casino Business For Sale
  • Play N Go Slots
  • Poker Apps For Real Money
  • Lucky Slots Real Money
  • All Slots Online Casino
  • Best Online Pokies Real Money Australia
  • Online Pokies Win Real Money
  • Best Online Casinos For Roulette
  • Pay Slots For Real Money
  • Best Online Poker Real Money
  • Slots App Win Real Money
  • Play Online Roulette For Real Money
  • Is Ignition Casino Legit
  • Wheel Of Fortune Slots Online
  • Lotsa Slots Real Money
  • Video Poker Online Real Money
  • Online Slots Usa Real Money
  • Play Blackjack Online Real Money
  • Jackpot City Online Pokies
  • Video Slots Online Casino
  • Is 888 Casino Legit
  • Online Slot Games That Pay Real Money
  • Prepaid Visa Card Online Casino
  • How To Stop Online Gambling
  • Best Slots To Play Online
  • Online Blackjack For Real Money
  • Slot Apps For Real Money
  • Mobile Slots Win Real Money
  • Newsletter Sign Up

    About Us

    Global Law Experts is dedicated to providing exceptional legal services to clients around the world. With a vast network of highly skilled and experienced lawyers, we are committed to delivering innovative and tailored solutions to meet the diverse needs of our clients in various jurisdictions.

    Social Posts

    See More:

    Contact Us

    Stay Informed

    Join Mailing List

    GLE