2019 (10) TMI 1299 - HC - Companies Law

Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - petitioners justify the approach to this court challenging the same alleging that even before the order is served on them, the third respondent, the Interim Resolution Professional appointed by the Tribunal in terms of the order, has commenced the insolvency resolution process, including public announcement - HELD THAT - It is deemed appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the third respondent to defer further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 till 23.10.2019. Ordered accordingly. If the petitioners prefer an appeal challenging Ext.P5 order on or before 23.10.2019, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be deferred for a further period of one week also.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order admitting corporate insolvency resolution process, Allegation of irreparable damage due to premature initiation of insolvency resolution process by Interim Resolution Professional.

Issue 1: Challenge to order admitting corporate insolvency resolution process

The judgment concerns a challenge to an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (the Tribunal) admitting an application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process against the first petitioner. The petitioners, despite the order being appealable, approach the court alleging that the Interim Resolution Professional appointed by the Tribunal has commenced the insolvency resolution process, including public announcement, even before serving the order on them. The petitioners claim to have sustainable grounds to challenge the order before the appellate authority and argue that the actions taken by the Interim Resolution Professional before the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal are causing irreparable damage to the first petitioner.

Issue 2: Allegation of irreparable damage due to premature initiation of insolvency resolution process by Interim Resolution Professional

The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel for the first respondent Bank, decides to dispose of the writ petition by directing the third respondent, the Interim Resolution Professional, to defer further proceedings pursuant to the challenged order until a specified date. The court orders the third respondent to defer proceedings till 23.10.2019 and further defers proceedings for an additional week if the petitioners file an appeal against the order by the specified date. This decision aims to prevent irreparable damage to the first petitioner due to the premature initiation of the insolvency resolution process by the Interim Resolution Professional.

This judgment from the Kerala High Court addresses the challenge to an order admitting a corporate insolvency resolution process and the allegation of irreparable damage caused by the premature initiation of proceedings by the Interim Resolution Professional. The court's directive to defer further proceedings aims to protect the interests of the petitioner and ensure a fair opportunity to challenge the order before the appellate authority.