Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + HC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1336 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - paramount contention advanced by the appellants is that the learned single Judge egregiously erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy - HELD THAT:- When a provision is interpreted by the Tribunal to arrive at a conclusion in regard to the application filed before it, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has passed the order without jurisdiction. At the most, what the appellants could allege is only the illegality of the order passed, which is a subject matter to be considered by the appellate Tribunal in terms of Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which is a well defined provision exemplifying the powers of the Tribunal - the appellate Tribunal is empowered to identify as to whether the approved resolution plan is in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force and as to whether there has been any material irregularity in exercising the powers by the resolution professional during the corporate insolvency resolution period. Yet another aspect that has come to our mind is that from the order of the Tribunal, it is clear that the secured creditor Bank has relinquished its security interest to the litigation estate and received proceeds from the sale of the estates by the liquidator in the manner specified in Section 53 of the Code, 2016. It is an admitted fact that the appellants have offered a guarantee to the loan availed by the Corporate Debtor from the first respondent Bank. It is under the above circumstances the Company Law Tribunal has arrived at its conclusions in its impugned order. Since the order was passed by the Tribunal after providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and other interested persons and taking into account the legal questions raised by the appellants, we are of the clear opinion that the learned single Judge was right in holding that there is no arbitrariness or illegality to be interfered with by exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellants could not establish any jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities justifying our interference in an intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Appeal dismissed.
|