Latest Judgement : Bombay High Court : Writ Petition under Article 226 seeking the order of NCLT be quashed and set aside. HELD, not maintainable, Dismissed.

In the matter of Kotak Investment Advisors Limited and Anr. Vs. Mr. Krishna Chamadia, Resolution Professional of Ricoh India Limited and Ors. Writ Petition (L) No. 3621 of 2019  

1. Petitioner filled Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the relief to issue writ of Certiorari, calling for Company Petition dated 28th November, 2019 hereto be quashed and set aside.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that it participated in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of respondent No.1 and submitted its Resolution Plan / Bid. The respondent No.1 accepted the bid of respondent No. 2 after the last date of submission. That was done after the bid of the petitioner was already opened. There is an illegality alleged in the acceptance of the bid of the second respondent. 

3. The petitioners state that their bid being the highest, it ought to have been accepted. However, the second highest bid was accepted by the Committee of Creditors. It is this gross illegal process adopted by the Resolution Professional which was challenged by the petitioner.

4. The Resolution Professional – respondent No.1 filed Application. That was accepted by the Tribunal and the Plan was sanctioned. The petitioners’ application has been rejected. 

5. Counsels on behalf of the Petitioner contended that :- they were not heard and objections raised by them were not taken into consideration by the members of the Bench. The petitioners say that they were not allowed to raise any objections as their Miscellaneous Application was already heard and the matter was closed for orders. Then, on 28th November, 2019, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned order. 

6. Further it was contended that “The member (tribunal member) who has passed the order was not even a member of NCLT at the time the matter was heard and reserved for judgment,” said the company in its petition. “The process adopted by NCLT of hearing objections by a separate bench and plan by a separate bench itself was faulty. This entire process is absolutely illegal, and it shows how mechanically the matters are decided.”

7. Considering all this, it is noted that the Section 32 is vital for this purpose and it says that any appeal from an order approving the Resolution Plan shall be in the manner and on the grounds laid down in sub-section (3) of section 61. 

8. The Hon’ble High Court held that a writ petition would not be maintainable in this case and proceed to dismiss it on the ground that the petitioners have alternate and equally efficacious remedy of filing on Appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and in that appeal, it can raise all grounds, including the one raised in the Memo of the present petition.