O R D E R

1 The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitted a company petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 by an order dated 4 June

2024.

2 The appellant instituted a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No 15859 of 2024, before the High Court for the State of Telengana on 12 June 2024 to challenge the order.

3 A statutory appeal was also filed before the National Company Law Appellant Tribunal (NCLAT) on 15 June 2024 against the same order of the NCLT.

4 When the appeal came up for hearing before the NCLAT, it was dismissed by the impugned order dated 24 June 2024 on the ground that the appellant could not be permitted to take recourse to two simultaneous remedies and the fact that a Writ Petition had been filed was not mentioned before the NCLAT at the very Signature Not Verifiedthreshold of the oral submissions.

Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2024.08.23 Reason:

5 We have heard Mr Shyam Divan, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr S Niranjan Reddy, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6 It is not in dispute that the appellant had disclosed in the Memo of Appeal that a writ petition had been filed before the High Court for the State of Telengana.

7 Be that as it may, we find merit in the finding of the NCLAT that the fact that a writ petition has been filed should have also been mentioned upfront before the NCLAT when the appeal was taken up. Both proceedings could not have been pursued simultaneously. However, it is common ground that the writ petition which was instituted before the High Court for the State of Telangana was withdrawn on 25 June 2024.

8 Mr S Niranjan Reddy, senior counsel justifiably urged that the withdrawal of the writ petition was only a day after the impugned order was passed by the NCLAT.

9 However, having regard to the interests of justice, we are of the view that it should be unduly harsh to penalise the appellant on the ground that a writ petition had been filed in addition to the statutory appeal when, as a matter of fact, the writ petition has now been withdrawn from the High Court. The Writ Petition was not maintainable in view of the statutory alternate remedy of an appeal against the order of admission under Section 9 before the NCLAT.

10 In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the NCLAT, Chennai dated 24 June 2024 and restore Company Appeal (AT)

(CH)(INS) No 210 of 2024 to the file of the NCLAT for disposal afresh.

11 However, it is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions which are kept open.

12 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

…...…...….......………………....…CJI. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] …...…...….......………………....…..J.

[J B Pardiwala]

…...…...….......………………....…..J.

[Manoj Misra]

New Delhi;

August 20, 2024

GKA

ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 7835/2024 DN PRATAP CHOWDARY Appellant(s)

VERSUS PANKAJ BHATTAD & ORS. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.153447/2024-STAY APPLICATION and IA No.154365/2024-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )

Date : 20-08-2024 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA For Appellant(s) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Puneet Yadav, Adv.

Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Adv.

Mr. P.pratap, Adv.

Mr. Prashanth R. Dahat, Adv.

Mr. Akshansh Gupta, Adv.

Ms. Priya Mittal, Adv.

Mr. Vasu Dev, Adv.

Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. S Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Raavi Yogesh Venkata, AOR Ms. Twinkle Rathi, Adv.

Mr. Kotte Venkata Pawan Kumar, Adv.

Ms. Thithiksha Padmam, Adv.

Mr. Saaketh, Adv.

Ms. Prachi Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Kartik Pant, Adv.

Mr. Harshit Khandar, Adv.

Mr. Nishakant Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Chaitanya, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1 The Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order and