Srinivas Reddy Yadiki vs M/S. Ardee Hitech Private Limited

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                           AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


      CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1740 of 2022

ORDER:     (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



     Heard Mr. M.M.Viswaraj, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Raja Shekar Rao Salvaji, learned

counsel appearing for the resolution professional.


2.   This civil revision petition has been filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and

validity of the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the

National      Company            Law        Tribunal,         Hyderabad   Bench,

Hyderabad (Tribunal), in CP (IB) No.493/9/HDB/2018.


3.   The said order was passed under Section 9 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), read with

Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to

the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.


4.   The aforesaid application was filed by the operational

creditor against the corporate debtor of which petitioner
                                  2




claims to be a shareholder, promoter and Director.             By the

order dated 19.04.2022, Tribunal admitted the petition

declaring moratorium and initiating corporate insolvency

resolution process.     Petitioner thereafter preferred an

appeal under Section 61 of the IBC before the National

Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Chennai (Appellate

Tribunal). On 05.07.2022, Appellate Tribunal directed the

resolution   professional   to       file   status   report,   further

directing the corporate debtor to file reply.            The appeal,

being Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.234/2022, is now

fixed on 21.09.2022 for further consideration.


5.   During the pendency of the appellate proceedings,

the present civil revision petition has been filed against the

very same order dated 19.04.2022.


6.   Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by

the time the appeal is heard and decided, the corporate

insolvency resolution process against the corporate debtor

would be complete, whereafter the corporate debtor would

be remediless.     Therefore, till the time the appeal is

decided, interim stay should be granted.
                                      3




7.    At this stage, learned counsel for the resolution

professional submits that there is a specific provision i.e.,

Rule 31 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

Rules, 2016, for seeking stay.


8.    Be that as it may, when there is a provision for

appeal and the petitioner has in fact availed the remedy of

appeal, we are not inclined to entertain a revision petition

that too under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We,

therefore, do not find any good ground to entertain the

revision petition.


9.    That apart, Division Bench of this Court in series of

judgments have held that when there is provision for

appeal under Section 61 of IBC, writ petition against orders

of Tribunal should not be entertained. One such order is

dated 22.08.2022 passed in W.P (SR).No.35243 of 2022,

relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:

      "7.    Having regard to the object and intent of IBC and the
      provision for appeal under Section 61 thereof, we are not
      inclined to entertain the writ petition. Petitioner has adequate
      and efficacious alternative remedy in the form of appeal where
      all grounds can be urged.
                                     4




      8.     We may mention that a Division Bench of this Court in
      B.V.Satya Sai Prasad v. National Company Law Tribunal
      (W.P.No.21997 of 2019, decided on 24.02.2020) declined to
      entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of
      alternative remedy under Section 61 of IBC. This position has
      been reiterated by a subsequent Division Bench of this Court
      in Ratna Infrastructure Projects Limited v. Axis Bank
      Limited (W.P.No.28149 of 2021, decided on 09.11.2021)
      holding that since there is a remedy of appeal, High Court
      would not entertain the writ petition. This position has been
      consistently followed by this Court in W.P(SR).No.350 of 2022
      decided on 06.01.2022, W.P (SR).No.30391 of 2022, decided
      on 21.06.2022, C.R.P(SR).No.4789 of 2022, decided on
      11.02.2022     and   W.P.No.28557   of   2022,   decided   on
      08.07.2022."




10.   That being the position, civil revision petition is

dismissed.


      Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.




                                ______________________________________
                                         UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ



                                ______________________________________
                                      C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
06.09.2022

vs