JUDGMENT :

J.B.PARDIWALA, J.

1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned writ applications are the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgement and order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the writ application being the Special Civil Application No.11199 of 2019 is treated as the lead matter.

3. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition and / or an appropriate writ, order and / or direction, directing the Respondent No.2 to not proceed with the final hearing and adjudication of Original Application No.648 of 2018, till such time that the Resolution Plan is finally approved / confirmed by the Appellate Authorities under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to adjourn the scheduled hearings of Original Application No.648 of 2018 pending before the Respondent No.2;

(C) Ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer (B) above may be granted;

(D) Such other and further reliefs as deemed just and expedient may be granted.”

4. The writ applicants are the promoters of one ESSAR Steel India Limited. The writ applicants executed personal guarantees towards the various credit facilities availed by the principal borrower i.e. the company namely ESSAR Steel India Limited.

5. The respondent No.1 herein is one of the largest Public Sector Banks in the country and is the lead lender of the principal borrower.

6. It appears from the materials on record that pursuant to an application preferred by the respondent No.1 – Bank under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, “the Code, 2016”), the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (for short, “the NCLT”) initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (for short, the “CIRP”) under the provisions of the Code vide an order dated 2nd August 2017.

7. During the pendency of the CIRP against the principal borrower, the respondent No.1 – Bank submitted its Claim Form as prescribed in the provisions of the Code before the Insolvency Resolution Professional of the Principal Borrower.

8. It is not in dispute that the Committee of Creditors of the principal borrower (COC) constituted under the provisions of the Code accepted with requisite majority the resolution plan of M/s. ArcelorMittal India Private Limited for the revival and resolution of the principal borrower. The financial package offered by the ArcelorMittal to the lender including the respondent No.1 is to the tune of Rs.42,000 Crore.

9. In accordance with the provisions of the Code, the Resolution Professional (RP) preferred an application under Section 30(6) of the Code being the Interlocutory Application No.431 of 2018 for the approval of the resolution plan of ArcelorMittal by the NCLT.

10. The resolution plan of ArcelorMittal was approved by the NCLT vide its order dated 8th March 2019. The I.A. No.431 of 2018 came to be conditionally allowed. We quote para 28 of the order passed by the NCLT as under:

“28. In the light of the above stated discussions, present I.A. No.431 of 2018 is conditionally allowed. The Resolution Plan submitted by ArcelorMittal India Pvt. Ltd. being H-1, is approved, as per Section 31(1) of the I&B Code, subject to the aforesaid observations and conditions and with the following statutory directions under Section 31(3) of the I&B Code:-

(a) that the moratorium order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 14 of the I&B Code shall cease to have effect; and

(b) that the Resolution Professional shall forward all records relating to the conduct of the corporate insolvency resolution process and the resolution plan to th