A writ petition pursuing parallel remedies under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is impermissible and affects parties' rights; interim orders must determine substantial issues.

JUDGMENT :

K. LAKSHMAN, J.

1. Heard Sri K. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Chokkapu Neela Achyuth, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Ravi Teja, learned counsel for respondent No.3, Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Tanushree Bose, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. Challenging the interim order, dated 07.10.2025 passed in W.P.No.28501 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge, the appellant/respondent No.4, preferred the present intra Court Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.

Facts:-

3. IDBI Bank Limited, secured Creditor had filed a Petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Aster Private Limited, Company in Liquidation vide CP (IB) No.199/7/HDB/2019 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (NCLT). During the pendency of the said petition, respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 r/w Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 vide I.A.No.1480 of 2025 in CP (I.B) No.199/7/HDB/2019, seeking cancellation of e-auction conducted, dated 28.08.2025 by respondent No.3 and conduct a fresh auction by permitting it to participate. The learned NCLT, adjourned the said I.A. to 29.10.2025.

4. During the pendency of the said interlocutory application, respondent No.1 had filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.28501 of 2025 to declare the action of respondent No.3 herein (Liquidator governed by IBBI and appointed by the learned NCLT) in proceeding with the e-auction, dated 28.08.2025, seeking to sell Aster Private Limited as a going concern with residual assets, without permitting respondent No.1 herein to participate in the e-auction, dated 28.08.2025 as arbitrary, illegal, consequently direct respondent No.3 to re-conduct the e-auction, dated 28.08.2025 by permitting respondent No.1 to participate in the e-auction.

5. The said Writ Petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 18.09.2025, on which date, the learned Single Judge, had ordered notice and personal notice to respondent Nos.2 to 4 therein through email and WhatsApp communication with an observation that the confirmation of auction sale by respondent No. 2 therein in favour of respondent No.4 therein pursuant to e-auction, dated 28.08.2025 shall be subject to further orders of the Court. Learned Single Judge directed to list the matter to 25.09.2025 in ‘Motion List’.

6. Thereafter, the said Writ Petition came up for hearing again on 07.10.2025, on which date, the learned Single Judge had passed the following order:-

“Heard Mr. E. Narender Naik, learned counsel, representing Ms.Tanushree Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Bharati JVL, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Liquidator, and Mr. Marnidi Avinash Reddy, learned counsel fo' respondent No.4.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned counsel for respondent No.4 have taken preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and submitted that l.A.Nos.1480 and 1481 of 2025 have been filed by the petitioner under Section 60 (5) of the lnsolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 before National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad (NCLT) – respondent No.1 seeking the same relief sought in this writ petition. Thus, having availed alternate remedy, the petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue this writ petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no regular Bench in I CLT Court No.l where the aforesaid lAs' are listed. The regular Judicial and Technical members have not been appointed and the office is lying vacant since March 2025. The matters are being heard on ad hoc basis by the in-charge members from th