An Adjudicating Authority has the inherent power and obligation to determine preliminary jurisdictional facts, such as locus standi, before proceeding to appoint a resolution professional under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; such threshold scrutiny does not constitute an adjudication on merits.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.03.2026 (UPLOADED ON 21.05.2026) PASSED BY THE HONBLE NCLT, BENGALURU IN CP (IB) NO.240//BB/2025 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order dated 30.03.2026 (uploaded on 21.05.2026) passed by the Hon'ble NCLT, Bengaluru in CP (IB) No.240//BB/2025; Annexure A

b. Direct the Hon'ble the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru to appoint a Resolution Professional in terms of section 97 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in CP (IB) No.240/BB/2025;

c. Pass any such further orders as may be deemed just and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The Petitioner had instituted proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, in CP(IB) No.240/BB/2025 under Section 94(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The case of the Petitioner before the Tribunal was that he had furnished a personal guarantee in favour of M/s. Aditya Birla Capital Limited in respect of credit facilities extended by the said financial creditor to Ace Embedded Intensive Care Units Private Limited. According to the Petitioner, the personal guarantee was invoked pursuant to a notice dated 20.05.2025 issued by M/s. Aditya Birla Capital Limited under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 . On that basis, the Petitioner asserted that he was entitled to invoke Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and seek initiation of the insolvency resolution process in his capacity as a personal guarantor.

3. Upon issuance of notice and after hearing the parties, the National Company Law Tribunal, by its order dated 30.03.2026, dismissed the application, holding that the Petitioner lacked the requisite locus standi to maintain the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition challenging its legality and correctness.

4. Though it was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that an efficacious alternative statutory remedy was available by way of an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, the learned counsel, upon instructions from the Petitioner, nevertheless insisted that the matter be heard on merits. In view thereof, this Court put the Petitioner on notice that, should the matter be entertained and ultimately decided against him, the Court would be inclined to impose exemplary costs, having reg