2023 (6) TMI 408 - HC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional - Section 16(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - Apparently, the impugned order having been passed on 22.12.2022, it is also pleaded in the writ petition itself that 23.12.2022 was the last working day of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and it was to reopen on 02.01.2023 and the petitioner had no notice whether any Vacation Bench was functioning and, therefore, it has been deprived of its statutory remedy of appeal under Section 61 of the Code. Resultantly, writ jurisdiction of this Court was being invoked. The writ petition is disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to avail his statutory remedy of appeal before the above said Tribunal within a period of two weeks from today.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional under Section 16(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the availability of alternative remedies, and the invocation of writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal appointing an Interim Resolution Professional. The Tribunal appointed Mr. Rajesh Lihala as the Interim Resolution Professional under Section 16(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The petitioner contended that proceedings were already pending before the NCLT, Mumbai Bench for framing a scheme to ascertain the creditors' claims, and there was a possibility of settlement in those proceedings. The High Court noted that the petitioner had not been able to appeal the impugned order due to the unavailability of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal during the relevant period. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to appeal before the statutory Tribunal within two weeks, with the stay on the impugned order continuing until the appeal is filed.

Availability of Alternative Remedies:
Respondent No.1 argued in its reply that alternative remedies were available to the petitioner. The High Court observed that both parties agreed that the matter could be referred back to the statutory Tribunal. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Tribunal within two weeks. The stay on the impugned order was to continue until the appeal was filed, and the petitioner was permitted to file an application for the continuation of the stay and under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, considering the pendency of the matter before the High Court. All pending applications were also disposed of in the judgment.