Case Law Details
Rajesh Exports Limited Vs Canara Bank (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court considered a writ petition seeking to quash proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 pending before the NCLT, Bengaluru, and to restrain their continuation.
The respondent raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, submitting that the insolvency proceedings were already pending before the NCLT and that the petitioner could raise all grievances and contentions before that forum.
The High Court noted that the Section 7 IBC proceedings were admittedly pending before the NCLT. In these circumstances, it held that the proceedings could not be quashed in the writ jurisdiction. The Court observed that if the petitioner had any grievance or defence, it was open to the petitioner to agitate the same before the NCLT in the pending proceedings.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, declining to quash the pending insolvency proceedings. It also discharged the interim order, if any, and disposed of all pending interlocutory applications.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Sri. Raghu H.P., counsel for the petitioner appeared in person.
Sri. C. K. Nandakumar, Senior counsel on behalf of Sri. Hemanth R. Rao, counsel for respondent appeared through video conferencing.
2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
a. Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction quashing the Impugned proceedings in CP(IB)51/2021 at Annexure-A on the file of NCLT Bangalore initiated by the Respondent under Sec.7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as void abinitio.
b. Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the Respondent from continuation of the impugned proceedings.
c. Pass such other Order or Orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice and Equity.
3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.
Sri. Nandakumar, Senior counsel seriously objects to the maintainability of the writ petition contending that the proceedings are pending before the NCLT. Hence, if the petitioner has any grievance, he can as well agitate his grievance before the pending proceeding before the NCLT.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.
5. The petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings in CP(IB).No.51/2021 vide Annexure-A. Admittedly, the proceedings initiated by the respondent are pending before NCLT. Hence, the proceeding cannot be quashed. If the petitioner has any grievance and the contentions, he may agitate the same before the pending proceeding.
6. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.
Author Bio
