The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition would not be maintainable if the petitioners have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. - By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following relief :

"(a) That this Hon''ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and after calling for the records and proceedings relating to Miscellaneous Application No. 1039 of 2019 in Company Petition No.156 of 2018 and Miscellaneous Application No.691 of 2019 in Company Petition No. 1256 of 2018 and after examining such records, proceedings and the Impugned Orders (i) passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 156 of 2018 and (ii) passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 691 of 2019 in Company Petition No. 156 of 2018 dated 28 th November 2019 being Exhibit ''A'' and Exhibit ''B'' hereto be quashed and set aside;"

2. The petitioner No.1 is Kotak Investment Advisors Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and the second petitioner is the Associate Director of the petitioner No.1. Both are functioning from the address mentioned in the cause title and stated to be the registered office of the petitioner No.1.

3. The first respondent is an Indian national. He is claiming to be Resolution Professional of Ricoh India Limited, whereas respondent Nos.2 and 3 are Indian nationals and members of Consortium Kalpraj Dharamshi and Rekha Jhunjhunwala whose Resolution Plan was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT" for short) by an order dated 28th November, 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 681 of 2019 in Company Petition No. 156 of 2018. Respondent No.4 is constituted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC" for short). The fifth respondent before us is the Union of India through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. It is in charge of and oversees the functioning of NCLT established under the Companies Act in 2013.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that it participated in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of respondent No.1 and submitted its Resolution Plan / Bid. The respondent No.1 accepted the bid of respondent No. 2 after the last date of submission. That was done after the bid of the petitioner was already opened. There is an illegality alleged in the acceptance of the bid of the second respondent. It is alleged that the petitioners objected to the process and enhanced its bid. That was highest in all terms. The petitioners state that their bid being the highest, it ought to have been accepted. However, the second highest bid was accepted by the Committee of Creditors. It is this gross illegal process adopted by the Resolution Professional which was challenged by the petitioner by filing Miscellaneous Application No. 1039 of 2019 in Company Petition No. 156 of 2018. The Resolution Professional - respondent No.1 filed Miscellaneous Application No. 691 of 2019. That was accepted by the Tribunal and the Plan was sanctioned. The petitioners'' application has been rejected.

5. After setting out the facts relating to filing of the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, the petitioners state firstly in paragraphs No.6.1 that the NCLT admitted the petition filed by the Corporate Debtor - Ricoh India Limited and appointed a Resolution Professional. The appointment was confirmed by the Committee of Creditors. The petitioners state that the Invitation for Resolution Plans were issued and the case of the petitioners is that the Plan submitted by it was opened on 9th January, 2019 and the details of the same were disclosed to all participants, including the Resolution Professional. It is their case that at that stage no further offer or bid could have been accepted. After the deadline for submission of Resolution Plan had expired, there was no question of thereafter entertaining any other Plan. However, there were two other Resolution Plans which were accepted by the Resolution Pro