Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. On 26.04.2018, this Court, on having received an affidavit filed on behalf of the Interim Resolution Professional, stated to have been appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), observed as under:-

"Prima-facie, once the case was pending before this Court and the concerned applicant Alchemist was already party to this Court proceedings and was well aware of the proceedings going on with regard to the revival proceedings and also had put up its proposal, at the same time the claim of workmen was also being examined for which the valuation report has been directed to be conducted by the Official Liquidator; there was no occasion for intervention by NCLT in the matter. It appears that no notice was issued to the State Government nor workmen were given any opportunity before admitting the same under the Code of 2016.

Learned Advocate General as well as Additional Advocate General state that they would like to file reply to the affidavit filed by the Interim Resolution Professional and pray for interim protection.

Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect, implementation and effect of order passed by NCLT shall remain stayed and till question is decided whether Code of 2016 will over ride the present proceedings, till that date, the State Government shall not hand over the possession of building and material of JMEL to the Interim Resolution Professional appointed by NCLT.

List on 3rd May, 2018."

2. The question before this Court essentially is whether the present proceedings can continue or whether the NCLT order appointing the IRP could be allowed to act in terms of IBC, 2016 while the present proceedings in relation to the Company are pending before this Court.

3. The Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State was heard alongwith the counsel appearing for the workmen as well as the counsels appearing for Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. The counsel for Jaipur Metals and Electrical Limited (JMEL) was also heard.

4. Before embarking on the question above, it would be useful to note certain orders which have been passed by this Court in the Company Petition as well as Writ Petitions filed by the workmen.

5. In the Company Petition on 17.08.2017, arguments were heard and order was reserved on the question whether the Company should be wound up. While the judgment was reserved, an application came to be filed by the State for recalling the order dated 17.08.2017 on the ground that the State Government was not able to present its case. It was stated that the State Government has decided to invite revival proposal and written submissions were also filed by the State. This was because in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 504/2000 preferred by Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. Majdoor Sangh, this Court had asked the Advocate General to find out the possibilities of reviving the Company as a prayer has been made in the said writ petition for revival of the Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. It was also stated that a meeting was convened under the chairmanship of the Hon'ble Industries Minister on 24.08.2017. Taking into consideration the averments, this Court listed the case under to be mentioned category and directed the State to advance its submissions whereafter the case was listed several times before the Court. The Company Petition was also placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to pass orders relating to consolidation of matters which had been taken up by the workman in writ proceedings whereafter the Hon'ble Chief Justice directed that the writ petitions shall be listed and heard alongwith Company Petition before the Company Judge.

6. The State Government was thereafter asked to submit a concrete proposal alongwith the Scheme. However, the State Government, later on submitted that they do not have any proposal and they were in the process of seeking proposals from the concerned parties who may come forward f