Disposed

Tijaria Polypipes Limited v. Bank of India

Rajasthan HC22 May 2025CW/8038/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an NCLT order in a Bank of India insolvency matter and sought restraint on NCLT proceedings while its One Time Settlement application was pending. The court disposed of the petition directing the petitioner to deposit the OTS amount by 10.06.2025 and directing the NCLT not to proceed for six weeks from 05.05.2025 or until disposal of the OTS application, whichever is earlier.

What the court decided

AI extract

Tijaria Polypipes Limited Vs Bank of India — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:21586]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8038/2025

¶4

Tijaria Polypipes Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Sp-12316, RIICO Industrial Area, Ramchandrapura, Sitapura Extension, Jaipur - 302002 (Rajasthan), Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Vikas Jain Tijaria S/o Shri Ramesh Jain Tijaria Aged 53 Years.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Bank Of India, Laxmi Complex Building, Subhash Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302001, Through Its Branch Manager. Having Its Head Office At Star House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051, Through Its Managing Director And Chief Executive Officer.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Archit Bohra
	Ms. Lipi Garg
	Ms. Nehal Bansal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. AjayShukla

¶10

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

22/05/2025

¶13

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

¶14

“1) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, quash and set aside impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur in CP (IB) No. 54/7/JPR/2023 titled Bank of India vs M/s Tijaria Polypipes Limited.

¶15

By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the Respondent Bank should not proceed in any manner before the Hon'ble National

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:21586]

[CW-8038/2025]

Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur in CP (IBC) No. 54/7/JPR/2023 titled Bank of India vs M/s Tijaria Polypipes Limited.

¶20

Any other order which the Hon'ble Court considers expedient, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners; and

¶21

Cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the humble petitioner.”

¶22

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (for short ‘the NCLT’).

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for One Time Settlement (OTS), the petitioner approached the financial institution but his application was rejected, hence, under those circumstances, he approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3278/2025, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2025 and the matter was remitted to the respondents with direction to decide the matter afresh within a period of six weeks and the petitioner was directed to deposit a demand draft of Rs.7 Crores, within a period of three weeks from that day. Learned counsel submits that while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, it was observed by this Court that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner for a period of six weeks.

¶24

Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid order passed by this Court was brought into notice of the NCLT, but even then the NCLT vide its order dated 05.05.2025 has proceeded further and posted the matter for the next date, i.e., 09.05.2025 for passing further orders. On the said date, the matter was posted for

[2025:RJ-JP:21586]

[CW-8038/2025]

(3 of 4)

23.05.2023 stating that the High Court has not stayed the proceedings of the NCLT but has only directed that no coercive action is to be taken against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the matter is subjudice before the respondentauthorities under the OTS offer given by the petitioner, so under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶29

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has failed to comply with the order passed by this Court and he has not deposited the requisite amount of Rs.7 Crores, as directed by this Court, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the period of three weeks with effect from 05.05.2025 has not expired as yet and the same would expire on 26.05.2025 and the petitioner would comply with the order passed by this Court and deposit the requisite demand draft of Rs.7 Crores on or before 26.05.2025, therefore, appropriate directions be issued to the authorities concerned including the NCLT to not to proceed further with the matter for a period of six weeks with effect from 05.05.2025 or till disposal of the OTS offer given to the petitioner by the respondents.

¶30

Considering the above aspect of the matter, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with directions to the petitioner to comply with the order passed by this Court dated 05.05.2025 and deposit the requisite amount of OTS on or before 10.06.2025 and the NCLT is directed not to proceed further against the petitioner for a period of six weeks from 05.05.2025 or till disposal of the

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:21586]

[CW-8038/2025]

OTS application submitted by the petitioner before the Bank of India whichever is earlier.

¶35

Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.

¶36

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶37

Karan/17

Tijaria Polypipes Limited v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Tijaria Polypipes Limited v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajenta Chemicals India Limited Vs Central Ground Water Authority

Little Flower Shiksha Samiti Vs State of Rajasthan

Banwari Lal S/O Shri Jeetpal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sabu Kathat S/O Shri Ismail Vs Commissioner, Ajmer Development Authority

New Mahatma Gandhi Pvt. Iti and Anr. Vs State Technical Edu Dept Anr.

Tejraj Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.