Fivebro Water Services Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs Bijay Murmuria & Ors (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court held that it would not be appropriate to invoke its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present case involving possession and control of assets with corporate debtor during liquidation.
Facts- The petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 are the lessee and licensee of the premises in question. The respondent No.1 is the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor i.e. Doshion Pvt. Ltd. and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the suspended management of the Corporate Debtor.
By way of the present petition, preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the legality, propriety, and validity of the order dated 21.06.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to vacate the premises in question, to pay the arrears of rent due thereon, and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to respondent No.1 – Liquidator within a period of seven days from the date of the said order.
Conclusion- Held that it would not be appropriate to invoke its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present case, having regard to the nature of the facts. The petitioners have conspicuously failed to disclose that respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who constitute the suspended management of the Corporate Debtor, are also Directors in petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 companies. Equally material is the fact that after executing unregistered agreements initially, a fresh lease agreement was executed on 31.08.2021 — the very day on which the Interim Resolution Professional was appointed, the moratorium was declared, and the management of the Corporate Debtor was suspended. It is a settled principle that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is exercised in favour of litigants who approach the Court with clean hands. In view of the seriousness and deliberate nature of the omissions and acts on record, this Court declines to exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226. It is, however, open to the parties to raise their grievances before the appropriate authority by way of the statutory remedy available under the Code.
