Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + HC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 810 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcyReview order - Maintainability of appeal - appeal maintainable against the orders challenged in the writ petition under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) and not under Section 421(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- There is no scope of review of the order merely on the basis of the finding that an appeal lay under Section 421(1) of the 2013 Act. It is well-settled that allegations on fact as to what transpired in Court on certain particular dates have to be levelled, for the ends of propriety, before the said Court itself, where the irregularity allegedly occurred, preferably before the same Presiding Officer. A challenge before a superior forum, including under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is illusory in nature, since it is most appropriate that the forum concerned itself, being in the best position to ascertain the veracity of such factual allegations, adjudicates such factual disputes - the mere allegation of violation of Rule 44 of 2016 Rules could not be sufficient justification for this Court to invoke the writ jurisdiction. An appeal, either under Section 421(1) of the 2013 Act or under Section 61 of the Code, would be a more efficacious and exhaustive remedy available to the petitioner in comparison to the writ petition - In the present case, however, the entire gamut of the petitioner’s allegations in the writ petition revolved around specific factual allegations which ought to have been decided by the NCLT itself. Moreover, since all the impugned orders had been passed in the absence of the petitioner, who failed to avail the opportunity of being represented before the NCLT, there is extremely limited scope of entering into the nitty-gritties of such factual allegations within the constraints of the writ jurisdiction. The order under review cannot be subjected to a review on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record, simply because there is no such apparent error in the impugned order which can be decided at the first blush without looking into the materials annexed to the writ petition and the connected records of the proceeding before the NCLT - there is no merit in the review application. Application dismissed.
|