Gopalan Ramakrishan vs Union Of India Through The ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 11378 Bom

 2023:BHC-OS:13288-DB


                                                                                       8 wpl 31011-23.doc



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                            WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 31011 OF 2023


                      Gopalan Ramakrishan                                                .. Petitioner

                               Versus

         Digitally
         signed by
                      Union of India & Ors.                                              .. Respondents
         LAXMI
LAXMI    SUBHASH
SUBHASH SONTAKKE
SONTAKKE Date:
         2023.11.08
         11:28:19
         +0530
                           Mr. Ashish Kamat a/w Mohit Khanna and Devansh Shah i/b.
                           Hudda & Associates for the Petitioner.

                           Mr. S. Mehta, Senior Counsel a/w D. P. Singh for Respondent
                           No.1.

                                                         CORAM        : B. P. COLABAWALLA &
                                                                        M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.

                                                         DATE         : NOVEMBER 06, 2023

                      P. C.

1. The above Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to quash

and set aside the impugned order dated 2 nd November, 2023 passed by

Respondent No.2 (Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal). By the

impugned order, the Petition filed by Respondent No.3 under Section 9

of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (for short "IBC"), 2016 [as an

operational creditor] was admitted.

NOVEMBER 06 2023 Laxmi

8 wpl 31011-23.doc

2. Mr. Kamat, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner has tendered an affidavit of service dated 6 th November, 2023

evidencing the service of the above Petition on Respondent No.3 and

who is the main contesting Respondent.

3. The main grievance made in the above Petition, and for

which the Petitioner has approached this Court, is that after the matter

was heard by the concerned members of the NCLT, the judgment was

reserved. Thereafter, the Bench of the NCLT was reconstituted and the

matter was de-reserved and was listed for a de novo hearing before the

newly constituted members of the NCLT. Despite this, suddenly on 2 nd

November, 2023, the earlier Bench of the NCLT, and without giving any

notice to the parties, listed the above matter on board for

pronouncement of judgment and passed the impugned order. The

grievance made is that this is completely in breach of not only the

principles of natural justice but also contrary to the NCLT Rules, 2016.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the

parties at some length. It is not in dispute that there is an alternate

remedy available to the Petitioner to assail the impugned order dated 2 nd

NOVEMBER 06 2023 Laxmi

8 wpl 31011-23.doc

November, 2023 before the NCLAT. We, therefore, dispose of the above

Writ Petition by allowing the Petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy.

5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case

and considering that an order of admission of a petition under Section 9

of the IBC, 2016 has serious consequences, including displacement of

the management of Respondent No.4, we direct that the Petitioner shall

file an appeal before the NCLAT along with an application for interim

relief within a period of thirty days from today. Until the application for

interim relief is heard by the NCLAT, the effect and operation of the

impugned order dated 2nd November, 2023 shall remain stayed, and

Respondent No.5 (Interim Resolution Professional) shall not take any

further steps in consequence of the said impugned order.

6. We request the NCLAT to hear the application for interim

relief proposed to be filed by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

After hearing the parties the NCLAT is at liberty to either vacate the

order passed by us above, or extend the same, or even modify it, if it so

thinks fit.

NOVEMBER 06 2023 Laxmi

8 wpl 31011-23.doc

7. We make it clear that we have not opined on the merits of

the matter one way or the other, and the same shall be decided by the

NCLAT on its own merits and in accordance with law.

8. We further clarify that this limited protection that we have

granted is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all parties

and the Petitioner shall be entitled to agitate all its contentions,

including the one raised in the present Petition before the NCLAT.

9. The above Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid

terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

10. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/

Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by

fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

[ M. M. SATHAYE, J.]                                 [ B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]





                                       NOVEMBER 06 2023
Laxmi