Sanjeev Krishan Sharma Vs Punjab National Bank & Anr (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution unwarranted since efficacious alternative remedies under DRT and NCLT. Accordingly, writ petition is misconceived.
Facts- This Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, seeking directions for the expeditious adjudication and, preferably, after consolidation, of two Interim Applications arising out of common transactions and disputes, which are (i) I.A. No. 635/2024 in T.A. No. 406/2022 (O.A. No. 136/2016), titled Punjab National Bank vs. M/s KMG A to Z Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi; and (ii) I.A. No. 3340/2024 in T.A. No. 2097/2023 (O.A. No. 29/2017), titled Canara Bank vs. M/s KMG A to Z Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi. In both IAs, the Petitioner has sought discharge from his personal guarantee and release of his mortgaged immovable property.
The Petitioner further seeks a stay of the personal insolvency proceedings initiated against him under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, bearing (IB) No. 58/ND/2025, titled Canara Bank vs. Sanjeev Krishan Sharma, pending before the National Company Law Tribunal, Court-VI, New Delhi. The Petitioner contends that the said proceedings arise from the same debt and transaction and that allowing them to continue simultaneously, before the Debts Recovery Tribunals and NCLT, would result in multiplicity of proceedings and the possibility of conflicting adjudications.
