IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 19.05.2025 NIPAN BANSAL … Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND OTHERS ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Pulkit Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aditya Sharda, Advocate and Mr.Piyush Khanna, Advocate for U.O.I./respondent No.1.

****

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is impugning the letter No.Liq-12011/214/2023-IBBI/840 dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India/respondent No.2. He has also sought quashing of subsequent action/order dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.4 vide which respondent No.3 has been appointed as the Liquidator in place of the petitioner.

2. Heard.

3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (for short -‘NCLT’) on 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-9) whereby respondent No.3 has been appointed as Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor namely M/s Cheema Spintex Ltd. The petitioner instead of challenging the order of NCLT by preferring an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (for short -‘NCLAT’), has approached this Court by preferring the instant writ petition. When an alternative remedy is provided by the Statute, this Court would exercise writ jurisdiction only in exceptional cases which include-when the order is passed without jurisdiction or in complete violation of the principles of natural justice.

Reference can be made to judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank, 2024 INSC 297. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“29. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy.

Some of them are thus:

(i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question;

(ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure;

(iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice.”

4. We may also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 (2) RCR (Civil)

771. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“27. The principles of law which emerge are that:

xxx xxx xxx

27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law.

27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.”

5. Furthermore, the petitioner is also impugning the letter dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) issued by Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India, after a period of almost 2 years. He does not seem to have challenged this letter before the NCLT and instead has rushed to this Court. It is not for this Court to decide as to whether respondent No.3 ought not to have been appointed as Liquidator instead of the petitioner who would be more qualified to act as a Liquidator. It is entirely within the domain of the NCLT to adjudicate such matters.

6. It is trite law that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a complete Code in itself and interference by this Court at this juncture would also be wholly unwarranted in v