CRP (PD) No.1480 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.04.2022

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

C.R.P.(PD).No.1480 of 2022

and C.M.P.No.7596 of 2022

G.Rathinavelu

.. Petitioner

v.

Indian Overseas Bank,

Rep. By its Assistant General Manager,

Cathedral Branch,

No.762, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

Through Mr.L.Prabakar,

Assistant General Manager.

.. Respondent

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India against the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal,

Chennai Bench II, dated 13.04.2022 in IBA/49/2019.

For Petitioner

: Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan,

Senior Counsel

O R D E R

Page 1/34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP (PD) No.1480 of 2022

(Order of the Court made by M.DURAISWAMY,J.)

Challenging the order passed in IBA/49/2019 on the file of the

National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-II, Chennai, the

petitioner-Corporate Debtor has filed the above Civil Revision Petition

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. This Court raised a query as to the maintainability of the Civil

Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for the reason that

as per Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the

petitioner has got remedy before the National Company Law Appellate

Tribunal.

3. This Court, while dismissing the similar Civil Revision Petition

in C.R.P.(PD).No.525 of 2022 [L & T Infra Investments Partners,

Mumbai v. Ebenezar Inbaraj and the Deputy Registrar, National

Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench] filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution as not maintainable, followed the following judgments:-

(i) (2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 308 [Embassy Property

Page 2/34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP (PD) No.1480 of 2022

Developments Private Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and others]

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“...

10.In the backdrop of the facts narrated and in the

light of the rival contentions extracted above, the first

question that arises for consideration is as to whether the

High Court ought to interfere, under Articles 226/227 of the

Constitution, with an order [Vasudevan v. State of

Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLT 681] passed by NCLT

in a proceeding under the IBC, 2016, despite the availability

of a statutory alternative remedy of appeal to NCLAT.

11.It is beyond any pale of doubt that the IBC, 2016 is

a complete code in itself. As observed by this Court in

Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank [Innoventive

Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, (2018) 1 SCC 407 : (2018) 1

SCC (Civ) 356 : AIR 2017 SC 4084] it is an exhaustive code

on the subject-matter of insolvency in relation to corporate

entities and others. It is also true that the IBC, 2016 is a

single Unified Umbrella Code, covering the entire gamut of

the law relating to insolvency resolution of corporate persons

and others in a time-bound manner. The Code provides a

three-tier mechanism, namely, (i) the NCLT, which is the

adjudicating authority, (ii) the NCLAT, which is the appellate

authority, and (iii) this Court as the final authority, for

Page 3/34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP (PD) No.1480 of 2022

dealing with all issues that may arise in relation to the

reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate

persons. Insofar as insolvency resolution of corporate debtors

and personal guarantors are concerned, any order passed by

the NCLT is appealable to NCLAT under Section 61 of the

IBC, 2016 and the orders of the NCLAT are amenable to the

appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 62. It is in

this context that the action of the State of Karnataka in

bypassing the remedy of appeal to NCLAT and the act of the

High Court in entertaining the writ petition against the order

[Vasudevan v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLT