IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126 NIPAN BANSAL UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS 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 issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has also sought (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.4 vide which respondent No.3 has been appointed as the Liquidator in place of 2. Heard. 3. The Company Law Tribunal (for short whereby respondent No.3 has been appointed as Liquidator Debtor namely M/s Cheema Spintex Ltd. the order of NCLT by preferring an appeal before the N Appellate Tribunal ( preferring the instant writ petition the Statute, this Court would exercise writ jurisdiction only in exceptional cases which include-when the order is violation of the principles of natural justice. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-14348-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 19.05.2025 NIPAN BANSAL Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND OTHERS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA 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 12011/214/2023-IBBI/840 dated 18.07.2023 issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has also sought quashing of subsequent action/order dated 08.05.2025 9) passed by respondent No.4 vide which respondent No.3 has been appointed as the Liquidator in place of the petitioner. Heard. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (for short -‘NCLT’) on 08.05.2025 (Annexure P whereby respondent No.3 has been appointed as Liquidator M/s Cheema Spintex Ltd. The petitioner the order of NCLT by preferring an appeal before the N Appellate Tribunal (for short -‘NCLAT’), ha preferring the instant writ petition. When an alternative remedy is provided his Court would exercise writ jurisdiction only in exceptional cases when the order is passed without jurisdiction principles of natural justice. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2025 DATE OF DECISION: 19.05.2025 … Petitioner UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ... Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Pulkit Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Khanna, Advocate for U.O.I./respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is impugning the IBBI/840 dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India/respondent No.2. He quashing of subsequent action/order dated 08.05.2025 9) passed by respondent No.4 vide which respondent No.3 has petitioner. petitioner has challenged the order passed by the National on 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-9) whereby respondent No.3 has been appointed as Liquidator of the Corporate The petitioner instead of challenging the order of NCLT by preferring an appeal before the National Company Law , has approached this Court by hen an alternative remedy is provided by his Court would exercise writ jurisdiction only in exceptional cases without jurisdiction or in complete Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is impugning the 1) He quashing of subsequent action/order dated 08.05.2025 9) passed by respondent No.4 vide which respondent No.3 has petitioner has challenged the order passed by the National 9) of the Corporate instead of challenging ational Company Law approached this Court by by his Court would exercise writ jurisdiction only in exceptional cases or in complete SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.05.29 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14348-2025 Reference can be made to judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: “29. certain Constitution alternative remedy. Some of them are thus: (i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of (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 4. We may also refer to of South Indian Bank 771. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: “27. xxx xxx xxx 27.4. of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be enter when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. 27.5. the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before 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, t 18.07.2023 (Annexure P after a period of almost 2 years. He does not seem to have challenged this letter before the NCLT and instead ha decide as to whether respon Liquidator instead 2025 Reference can be made to judgment of the Supreme Court in the PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: 9. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved 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.” We may also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 (2) RCR (Civil) 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 enter 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 discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.” Furthermore, the petitioner is also (Annexure P-1) issued by Insolvency 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 2 Reference can be made to judgment of the Supreme Court in the PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank, 2024 INSC 297. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the could be entertained in spite of availability of an (i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the enactment in question; (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Ltd. Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 (2) RCR (Civil) The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: The principles of law which emerge are that: 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. 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, also impugning the letter dated nsolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India, after a period of almost 2 years. He does not seem to have challenged this letter rushed to this Court. It is not for this Court to dent No.3 ought not to have been appointed as would be more qualified to act as a 2 Reference can be made to judgment of the Supreme Court in the . The out exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the could be entertained in spite of availability of an (i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Ltd. Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 (2) RCR (Civil) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate tained When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, impugning the letter dated , after a period of almost 2 years. He does not seem to have challenged this letter rushed to this Court. It is not for this Court to dent No.3 ought not to have been appointed as would be more qualified to act as a SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.05.29 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14348-2025 Liquidator. It is entirely matters. 6. It is trite law that complete Code in itself and interference by this Court at this juncture would be wholly unwarranted in view of case of Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. Versus Farooq Ali Khan and others, AIR 2025 Supreme Court 1079 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 adequate remedies have been provided thereunder ought not to exercise for in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 reproduced hereunder: “15. Apart from delay and laches, High Court should have noted that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a complete code in itself, having sufficient checks and balances, remedial avenues and appeals. Adherence of protocols and procedures maintains legal disci the quest for justice. The supervisory and judicial review powers vested in High Courts represent critical constitutional safeguards, yet their exercise demands rigorous scrutiny and judicious application. This is certainly not a case for the High Court to interdict CIRP proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.” 7. In view of the above, we do not find it appropriate to exercise writ jurisdiction as The petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner avail alternative remedy in accordance with law. 2025 Liquidator. It is entirely within the domain of the NCLT to adjudicate such It is trite law that the Insolvency and complete Code in itself and interference by this Court at this juncture would be wholly unwarranted in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. Versus Farooq Ali Khan and others, AIR 2025 Supreme Court 1079 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a complete Code in itself and adequate remedies have been provided thereunder ought not to exercise its writ jurisdiction in matters which Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 reproduced hereunder:- 15. Apart from delay and laches, High Court should have noted that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a complete code in itself, having sufficient checks and balances, remedial avenues and appeals. Adherence of protocols and procedures maintains legal discipline and preserves the balance between the need for order and the quest for justice. The supervisory and judicial review powers vested in High Courts represent critical constitutional safeguards, yet their exercise demands rigorous scrutiny and judicious application. This is certainly not a case for the High Court to interdict CIRP proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.” In view of the above, we do not find it appropriate to exercise writ jurisdiction as an alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner avail alternative remedy in accordance with law. 3 in the domain of the NCLT to adjudicate such Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a complete Code in itself and interference by this Court at this juncture would also law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. Versus Farooq Ali Khan and others, AIR 2025 Supreme Court 1079 wherein it has been held that is a complete Code in itself and adequate remedies have been provided thereunder and therefore, the writ Court writ jurisdiction in matters which have been provided Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The relevant extract is 15. Apart from delay and laches, High Court should have noted that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a complete code in itself, having sufficient checks and balances, remedial avenues and appeals. Adherence of protocols and procedures maintains legal pline and preserves the balance between the need for order and the quest for justice. The supervisory and judicial review powers vested in High Courts represent critical constitutional safeguards, yet their exercise demands rigorous scrutiny and judicious application. This is certainly not a case for the High Court to interdict CIRP proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy In view of the above, we do not find it appropriate to exercise the remedy is available to the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail alternative remedy in accordance with law. 3 in the domain of the NCLT to adjudicate such is a also law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. Versus Farooq Ali Khan held that is a complete Code in itself and efore, the writ Court provided relevant extract is 15. Apart from delay and laches, High Court should have noted that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a complete code in itself, having sufficient checks and balances, remedial avenues and appeals. Adherence of protocols and procedures maintains legal pline and preserves the balance between the need for order and the quest for justice. The supervisory and judicial review powers vested in High Courts represent critical constitutional safeguards, yet their exercise demands rigorous scrutiny and judicious application. This is certainly not a case for the High Court to interdict CIRP proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy the remedy is available to the petitioner. at liberty to SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.05.29 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-14348-2025 8. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only for deciding the instant writ petition. merits of the matter. This order shall have no bearing on adjudication by the competent Court/Tribunal 19.05.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only for deciding the instant writ petition. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. This order shall have no bearing on adjudication by the competent Court/Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No 4 It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only for e are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. This order shall have no bearing on adjudication by the (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No 4 It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only for e are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. This order shall have no bearing on adjudication by the SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.05.29 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document