JUDGMENT

T. Vinod Kumar, J. - The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in registering an FIR on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, unjustified, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional and consequently directing the official respondents to register first information report (in short FIR)on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner with consequential relief directing respondent No. 5 to 7 not to take or proceed with any coercive steps or proceedings relying on the purported ledger statement dated 14.04.2017 till the completion of investigation.

2. The brief facts which gives rise to the present petition are as under:

i) The petitioner is an infrastructure company involved in the business of construction and infrastructure projects in various sectors such as water and wastewater, transportation, irrigation, industrial construction, power transmission and distribution, buildings both residential commercial and retail property since the year 1994 and has a reputation of delivering quality services over a period of 25 years. It is claimed that the petitioner company had placed purchase orders on 5th respondent in the present writ petition for supply of construction equipment during the year 2012. It is also claimed that in respect of the said purchase orders placed by the petitioner company on the 5th respondent and the supplies affected by the said respondent the petitioner company cleared all the payments due under the purchase orders placed in respect of the goods supplied by the said respondent promptly and closed the account of the 5th respondent.

ii) It is claimed by the petitioner that some disputes arose over the quality of certain goods supplied by the 5th respondent which the petitioner did not accept and the last payment in respect of the admitted amounts due and payable was made by the petitioner on 27.05.2015.

iii) It is the case of the petitioner that the 5th respondent after more than three years from the date of last payment sent a demand notice dated 13.05.2019 under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (in short IBC) claiming an amount of Rs. 2,07,03,712/- including interest up to 10.05.2019 as due and payable by the petitioner to the said respondent. It is also claimed that in response to the said notice, the petitioner company promptly sent its reply on 21.05.2019 categorically stating that the alleged claim of the 5th respondent was hopelessly barred by limitation in the light of the various judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the proceedings under IBC.

iv) It is claimed that despite issue of reply by the petitioner, the 5th respondent filed company petition CP(IB) No. 586/9/HDB/2019 before the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (in short NCLT) under section 9 of the code to initiate CIRP against the petitioner company.

v) It is the case of the petitioner that it is only after the 5th respondent filed proceedings before NCLT, the petitioner became aware of the alleged claim being made by the 5th respondent company by introducing a ledger statement dated 14.04.2017 purportedly issued by the petitioner company acknowledging the amount being claimed as due and payable by the petitioner to the 5th respondent company. It is claimed that the purported ledger statement dated 14.04.2017 with the alleged seal and signature of the authorised representative of the petitioner company does not belong to the petitioner company and was not at all issued by the petitioner company and the said ledger statement was clearly forged by the 5th respondent in order to circumvent the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, in a fraudulent manner in order to maintain the company petition filed before the NCLT.

vi) It is further claimed that the petitioner company came to know abou