The High Court cannot entertain Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 where the IBC provides explicit appellate procedures.

[made by S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.,]

The present two Civil Revision Petitions have been instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Insofar as CRP.No.1626 of 2026 is concerned, the order dated

11.09.2025 passed by the “National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench, Court-II, Chennai” [hereinafter “NCLT” for the sake of brevity] is under challenge.

3. An application came to be filed to take on record the report of the Resolution Professional under Section 99 of “the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016” [hereinafter “IBC” for the sake of brevity] in Annexure-B as well as to condone the delay of 15 days in submitting the report. The reason for delay has also been explained in the application of the Resolution Professional.

4. Considering the reasons stated in paragraph No.5 of the application, the NCLT condoned the delay and the report was taken on record. The petitioner before this Court filed an application seeking to dismiss C.P.(IB)/268(CHE)2024 as not maintainable and barred by limitation as the same issue is being dealt with as part of the original company petition filed in this case and a reply has also been e-filed. However, the Tribunal dismissed the petition and the said order is under challenge before this Court mainly on the ground that a cryptic / non- speaking order passed by the NCLT is not an appealable order under Section 61 of IBC.

5. Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that there was no adjudication nor reasons recorded and thus, C.R.P.No.1626 of 2026 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. To substantiate the contention, the learned Senior Counsel would refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Curt of India in the case of Dilip B.Jiwrajka Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2024) 5 SCC 435. He would solicit the attention of this Court with reference to the role of the Adjudicating Authority as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph Nos.73 and 74 of the judgement cited supra. Relying on the said judgment, he would submit that no judicial adjudication is involved and therefore, C.R.P.No.1626 of 2026 is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Insofar as CRP.No.1643 of 2026 is concerned, the NCLT passed an order in the matter of Section 95 of IBC. In respect of the order dated 11.09.2025, which is under challenge in CRP.No.1626 of 2026, the NCLT considered the issues on merits and appointed the Resolution Professional and she was directed to examine the application as set out in Section 97(6) of IBC.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent -

Canara Bank would submit that the Resolution Professional has already submitted her report which has been taken on record and that being so, the cause does not exist in respect of the petition filed in CRP.No.1643 of

2026.

8. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis.

9. The scope of Section 61 of the IBC need not be restricted nor be qualified to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the NCLT. Section 61(1), in unambiguous terms, stipulates that any person aggrieved by an order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. The provision does not distinguish between orders which are speaking or non-speaking. However, in respect of the impugned order dated 11.09.2025, the delay of 15 days was condoned by the NCLT and the report of the Resolution Professional was taken on record. The application filed by the petitioner seeking dismissal of C.P.(IB)/268(CHE)2024 was dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal did not find