Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 49514 (KAR)

ASHOK KRIPLANI v. SH KONDURU PRASANTH RAJU

WP/23080/2024 · 2026-01-13

D K Singh, S Rachaiah

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1977-DB WP No. 23080 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 23080 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. ASHOK KRIPLANI AGED 68 YEARS PRACTISING ADVOCATE AND ERSTWHILE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL DREAMZ INFRA INDIA PVT. LTD., 61, FLAT NO. F-1, 5TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BENGALURU 3 560 095 &PETITIONER (BY SRI ASHOK KRIPLANI, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: 1. SH. KONDURU PRASANTH RAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS THE RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL DREAMZ INFRA INDIA LTD., (SUMUDHAR PROJECT) B-804, SHRIRAM SUHAANA APARTMENTS HAROHALLI, NAGENAHALLI GATE YELAHANKA, BANGALORE KARNATAKA 3 560 064 Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1977-DB WP No. 23080 of 2024 2. THE REGISTRAR NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH CORPORATE BHAWAN 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS M.G ROAD BENGALURU 3 560 001 3. THE REGISTRAR THE HON9BLE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, BLOCK NO.3 GROUND, 6TH, 7TH AND 8TH FLOOR C.G.O. COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 3 110 003 4. THE REGISTRAR THE HON9BLE NCALT CHENNAI BENCH 6TH FLOOR EZHILAGAM ANNEXE BUILDING CHEPAUK, CHENNAI TAMILNADU 3 600 005 5. THE REGISTRAR THE HON9BLE NCLAT PRINCIPAL BENCH 2ND FLOOR, M.T.N.L BUILDING NEAR SCOPE COMPLEX CGO COMPLEX NEW DELHI 3 110 003 6. THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1977-DB WP No. 23080 of 2024 GARAGE NO.14, <A= WING SHASTRI BHAWAN RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD NEW DELHI 3 110 001 7. MS. RAMANTHAN BHUVANESHWARI INTERIM INSOLVENCY PROFESSIONAL (IRP) DREAMZ INDIA INFRA LTD. (SNEH PROJECT) C-006, PIONEER PARADISE, 24TH MAIN 7TH PHASE, J.P.NAGAR BENGALURU KARNATAKA 3 560 078 (V/O DATED 26.03.2025) &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ARCHANA BHAGEERATHI, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. LAKSHMI MENON, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI KUMAR M N, CGSC FOR R-2 TO R-6; SMT. CHITHRA NIRMALA, ADVOCATE FOR R-7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.06.2024 IN IA.59/2024 IN TA.79/2021 DECIDED BY THE NCLAT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1977-DB WP No. 23080 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench (NCLAT) on I.A.No.59/2024 (Review Petition) in TA (AT) No.79/2021. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) by an order dated 20.08.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (NCLT) in respect of the Company namely, M/s. Dreamz Infra India Limited. Later, the petitioner was appointed as the Resolution Professional (RP) vide order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the NCLT. However, the NCLAT, vide order dated 13.01.2021 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.34/2020 (Annexure-F), has replaced the petitioner as IRP. 3. The petitioner had filed I.A.No.168/2022 before the NCLT under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1977-DB WP No. 23080 of 2024 2016 read with Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking to implead him as Intervenor and decide upon the unpaid Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) costs in the CIRP period as the erstwhile RP in the other company petition which was for a different project. 4. The NCLT noted that the petitioner was appointed as IRP/RP in Company Petition bearing C.P. (IB) No.84/BB/2019 against the same Corporate Debtor herein for another project. It was held that the petitioner would not have any locus standi to file the IA in the C.P. (IB) No.84/BB/2019 and thus, the application came to be dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the NCLT, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the NCLAT. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the NCLAT vide order dated 07.06.2023. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, approached the Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal (arising out of Diary No.29170/2023) wherein, he alleged that the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the NCLAT did not deal with the aspect of non-payment of his fee and costs incurred by him. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1977-DB WP No. 23080 of 2024 6. The Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 19.10.2023 passed in the said civil appeal, was of the opinion that it was not aware whether the said aspects of non-payment of fee and costs were subject matter in the appeal which was filed before the NCLAT and whether the same were raised before the NCLAT or not. If the said aspects were the subject matter which were raised before the NCLAT, but had not been decided, it would be open to the petitioner to file an application for review before the NCLAT and if such an application is filed, the same should be considered and decided in accordance with law. 7. In pursuance of the said liberty granted by the Supreme Court, the petitioner filed the review petition in I.A.No.59/2024 in TA (AT) No.79/2021 before the NCLAT. The NCLAT, by the impugned order, dismissed the review petition as not maintainable on the ground that such remedy is not provided under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 8. We have considered the submissions of the petitioner and perused the relevant records and the impugned order as well as the orders passed by the NCLAT and the Supreme Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1977-DB WP No. 23080 of 2024 9. Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against an order passed by the NCLAT, the petitioner has statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Supreme Court. 10. In light of the statutory remedy of appeal provided against the order passed by the NCLAT, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court by filing an appeal, if he is so advised. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM/BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26