JUDGMENT

P.S.Dinesh Kumar, J. - This writ petition is presented seeking a writ of certiorari and to quash order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, (for short 'the NCLT' ) in C.P.(IB) No.286/BB/2019 and to permit the petitioner to fi le its statement of objections before NCLT.

2. Heard Shri Vivek Holla, learned advocate for petitioner and Shri M.Jagadeesh, learned advocate for respondent.

3. Brief ly stated the facts of the case are, petitioner-Company availed loan of Rs.36.93 crores from Bank of Maharashtra (for short 'the Bank' ) as per sanction dated 23.10.2009. The loan was restructured in the year 2012. It is pleaded that petitioner utilized the entire credit faci lity towards its infrastructure development and various other works. Due to unpredicted challenges, there was delay in getting receivables, due to the petitioner. Hence, there was delay in paying interest to the bank. The bank issued notice on 12.08.2014 under Section 13 (2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act)' . The properties mentioned in the notice as items No.12, 13 and 14 were brought to sale in public auction.

4. In furtherance to the proceedings under SARFAESI Act, a Criminal Misc. No.13045/2015 was filed before the learned Magistrate. Sale notice dated 16.12.2016 and public notice dated 24.12.2016 were published in the newspaper. Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.3317/2017 and an interim order was granted on 30.01.2017 permitting the Bank to go ahead with the proposed auction with a rider that the Bank shall not confirm the sale.

5. On 31.03.2017, Bank assigned its debt to the petitioner-Company.

6. One Suresh claiming to be tenant under petitioner also filed W.P.No.17303/2018 before this Court. An interim order was passed restraining the respondent herein from removing the stocks belonging to the tenant. The said writ petition along with W.P.No.3317/2017 was disposed of on 29.01.2019 granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short 'the DRT' ). Petitioner moved the DRT in I .R.No.695/2019 in S.A.No.106/2019 with a prayer to set aside the auctions conducted pursuant to public notice.

7. On 20.08.2019, respondent moved the NCLT, Bengaluru, under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, ( for short 'the Bankruptcy Code' ) to commence insolvency resolution process against the petitioner. Petitioner sought time on various dates to explore possibi lity of settl ing the issue and to fi le statement of objections. After granting several adjournments, the NCLT has passed the impugned order on 17.12.2019 appointing Shri Ravindranath N, as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to conduct the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Feel ing aggrieved by the said order, petitioner is before this Court.

8. This Court has granted an interim order on 12.06.2020. On the subsequent dates, i.e. , on 16.06.2020, 18.06.2020, 19.06.2020, 25.06.2020, 02.07.2020, 09.07.2020, 16.07.2020, 20.07.2020 and 22.07.2020 time was sought to explore possibi lity of settlement but there was no settlement and the petition was finally heard on 25.08.2020.

9. Shri Holla mainly urged following contentions in support of this petition:

that though petitioner made sincere ef forts, he could not make any deposit either before NCLT or before this Court;

that sufficient opportunity was not given by the NCLT to file counter; and

that NCLT could not have admitted the matter since as on the date of presentation of the application under Section 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, the debt was time barred. Therefore, alternative remedy is not a bar.

10. On the issue of alternative remedy, Shri Holla submitted that since admitting the application in respect of a time barred debt is a jurisdictional issue, alternative remedy is not a bar to entertain this writ petition. In support of this contention, he relied upon WHI