9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the same are already pending consideration before the NCLT. It has not been disputed, that the issue of remittance of outstanding dues from the Department of Post is currently pending before the NCLT. Further, notice already stands issued to Department of Posts in respect of the application moved qua the dues. As such, we fail to understand the reasons holding back the Appellant from campaigning its cause before the NCLT - no fault can be found in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There are no reason for this Court to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction at this stage to parallelly consider the question of realisation of the NRRA in-question. That apart, the issue of remittance of outstanding dues by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tance of the outstanding dues as also directions against Department of Posts for violation of Section 37 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 ( Act ) pertaining to undelivered postal articles. By way of the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition, observing that the issue raised in the writ petition was pending consideration before the NCLT. Background 5. The background of the grievance as laid out in the present appeal is as under: 5.1. On 17th December, 2019, GTPL was admitted into insolvency and an Interim Resolution Professional ( IRP ) was appointed by the NCLT. Upon examination of GTPL s records, the IRP found that were orders/ consignments sent through Department of Posts wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the NCLT under Section 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ( IBC ) against Respondent No. 4 seeking directions for recovery of the outstanding amount. Meanwhile, GTPL went into liquidation in terms of order dated 02nd November, 2021 and the IRP was appointed as the Liquidator. Subsequently, the NCLT issued notice to Respondent No. 4 in I.A. No. 4848/2021, by way of order dated 20th December, 2021. Copy thereof was communicated to Respondent No. 4 by IRP s counsel, vide letter dated 27th December, 2021. 5.4. On 28th June, 2022, in a meeting convened between the Stakeholders Consultation Committee of GTPL, it was resolved to assign, through auction, all identified Not Readily Realizable Assets ( NRRAs ) of GTPL, which included ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h it was posted or returned to. the sender or returned to the office of the Postmaster General. 4. It is stated that several articles sent by Growthways Trading Private Limited were neither delivered to the customers nor returned to the origin RTO and, therefore, the consignment was realizable and we classified as NRRA which now stands assigned to the Petitioner herein. Learned Counsel states that the Petitioner has no other remedy other than approaching this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for recovery of the amount. 5. As stated above, Mr. Jatin Nagpal, from whom the Petitioner had taken the assignment, has already filed an application under Section 60(5) of Code and as the IRP has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee in accordance 'with regulation 31A, for a consideration to any person, who is eligible to submit a resolution plan for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor. Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-regulation, not readily realisable asset means any asset included in the liquidation estate which could not be sold through available options and includes contingent or disputed assets and assets underlying proceedings for preferential, undervalued, extortionate credit and fraudulent transactions referred to in sections 43 to 51 and section 66 of the code. 8. A perusal of the above Sections and Regulation shows that the IRP has already approached the NCLT for the purpose of realisation of the NRRA. Under Regul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nor returning back said orders/consignments to the origin, in terms of the said provision. 7.3. The Impugned Judgment has incorrectly relied upon the fact that similar relief has been prayed before the NCLT by the Ex-Resolution Professional/ Current Liquidator appointed for GTPL. 7.4. The Impugned Judgment did not take into account that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have committed dereliction of duty by not remitting the amount in-question. Analysis 8. We have considered the aforenoted contentions and perused the documents on record. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition holding that it was not open for the Petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India for reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
