Dismissed

M/s. Core Hotel Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda

Telangana HC8 Jun 2021WP/2309/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in an instant writ petition challenging NCLT orders denying approval to a resolution plan, held that there is no need to exercise writ jurisdiction since the petitioner and other stakeholders have alternative remedies pending before the NCLAT. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and related applications were disposed of without costs, with liberty to approach the NCLAT.

M/s. Core Hotel Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bank of Baroda — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ANO THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 2309 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

tvl/s. Core Hotel Ventures Pvt. Ltd, Sy. No. 64, Hitech City Main Road^Near Shilpkala Vedika, Hitech City Madhapur, Hyderabad^{Telangana-UOO9.?lr,r,o*.*}

¶8

AND

¶9

'1 . Bank of Baroda, Zonal Stressed Asses Recovery Branch, No. 6-1-84/13, First Floor, Khusru Jung House, Secretarial Road, Saifabad,^{Hyderabad -500 004'} lndia

¶10

M/s. Golden Jubilee Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Through^its steering^{committee Survey No.} 64, Beside Shilpakalavedika, Shilparamam, lt/adhapur^{Hyderabad - 500081.} Telangana' lndia

¶11

...RESP.NDENTS

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the HighCourt may be pleased to} issue a writ order or direction more^{particularly one in the natureof WRITOF} CERTIORARI

¶13

(i) To quash the impugned order dated 2710212018^{passed in CP (lB)No.} 24Bl7tHDBt2O|7 by the Hon'ble National Company^{Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench} and pass such other and further order/orders^{as this Hon'ble Courtmay deemfit and} proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the^{interestof justice.}

¶14

(ii)To quash the impugned order dated 0710212020^passed in lA 32^{of 2019 in} CP(lB) NO. 248t7tHDBl2O17 of the^{Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal,} Hyderabad Bench and declare all consequential^{actionsas null and void.}

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High court maybe pleased to dispense} the filing of the original orders i.e.,^{(1) Order daled27l02l2018passed in CP (lB) No} 248t7lHDBl2O17 and⁽²⁾ Order dated^{07.02.2020 passed in lA 32 of 2019 in cP(lB)} NO. 248l7/HDB 12017 bolh^passed by the^{Hon'ble NationalcompanyLawTribunal,} Hyderabad Bench

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶18

Petition under Section^'! 51 CPC^{praying thatin the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High court may be pleasedto suspend the} order dated 07to2l2o2o^{paseedin lA 32 ot 2019in cP(lB) NO.248I7/HDB12017ot} the Hon'ble National Company^{Law Tribunal,Hyderabad Bench}

¶19

lA NO: 3 OF 2021

¶20

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 2710212018 passed in CP (lB) No. 248I7/HDBt201t by the Hon,ble National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ABHIJIT BAL

¶23

SRI VIKRAM POOSERLA

¶24

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI CH. SRINIVAS

¶25

Counsel for Respondent No. 2: ---

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

Item No.20

¶28

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTIC E HIMA KOHLI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIC E B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.2309 OF 2021

¶30

ORDER: (P€r th€ Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohti)

¶31

l. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with a twofold prayer, firstly, challenging the order dated 27.02.201 8 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad (NCLT) and secondly, for quashing of the order dated 07.02.2020, passed by the NCLT in l.A.No.32 of 2019 in CP (IB) No.248/7,/FIDB 12017 lied by the Resolution Professional for approval of the Resolution Plan.

¶32

Mr. Abhijit Bal, leamed counsel appearing for the^petitioner states, at the outset, that the relief in the^{presentpetition maybe} confined to prayer (ii) alone i.e., for^quashing of^{the order dated} 07 .02.2020 passed by the NCLT, approving the^{ResolutionPlan.}

¶33

On the last.date of hearing noting that^{the ResolutionPlan had} already been approved by the NCLT,^{we had requestedlearned} counsel for the petitioner to address^{this court on the maintainability} olthe present petition in^{the light ofa recent j udgrnent oftheSupreme} (lourt ir-r Ghanashvar"n Mis hra and Sons Private I-irnited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Cotnpany Limited reported as 2021^SCC Online SC 313'^{parlicularly,para 95 thereof'Learned counselhad} sought time to address^{argumentson the said aspect on the nextdate'}

¶34

Page I of 3

¶35

W.P.No.2309 of 2021

¶36

Today, Mr. Abhijit Bal, learned counsel appearing fol the petitioner seeks to rely on paragraph 129 of the above ruling wherein the Supreme Court has observed that non-exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a rule of self-restraint and would not bar a party from invoking the power ofjudicial review only because there is an alternative remedy available. It is submitted that the present petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right of the petitioner in whose case, principles of natural

¶37

justice have been violated in as much as his client had moved an application before the NCLT, registered as LA.No.63 of 2019 dated 21.01.2019, objecting to the approval of the Resolution plan. Without disposing the said application, the NCLT has proceeded to approve the Resolution Plan on 07.02.2020, which order is wholly without

¶38

jurisdiction.

¶39

In the course of arguments, we have enquired from leamed counsel for the petitioner as to the fate of the aforesaid application, only to be informed that after the present petition came to be filed on 01.02.2021, the NCLT had taken up the said application and dismissed the same vide order dated I l.O2.2O2l, observing inter alia that in view of the Resolution plan having already been approved on 27.02.2018, the said application had been rendered infructuous and if aggrieved, the petitioner could approach the appellate authoritv under the statute.

¶40

tY.P.No.2309 of 2021

¶41

Page 2 of3

¶42

On asking leamed counsel for the petitioner as to whether any other stakeholder has challenged the order dated, 07.02.2020, passed by the NCLT approving the Resolution Plan in respect of the respondent No.2, he states on instructions that several stakeholders have preferred appeals against the order^{dated07.02.2020 before the} National Company Law^{Appellate Tribunal, NewDelhi} Q"ICLAT)^and the NCLAT has^{passed an order on 16.07.2020, restraining the parties} from taking any^{precipitative/coercivesteps'}

¶43

In view of^{the aboveposition,we do not see any reason to} enterlain the^{present petition by exercisingthe powerof judicial} review. If^{aggrieved by the orderdated 07'02'2020'the petitioneris} well entitled to^{approachthe NCLAT just as the other stakeholders} have done^{and takeup the plea of violation of principlesof natural} justice as has been^{urgedin this petition'}

¶44

The present^{petitionis accordinglydisposedof aiong with the} pending applications,^{if any, with libertygrantedto the petitioner to} approach^{the NCLAT for relief'}

¶45

SD/.K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR ( rt,,

¶46

//TRUE^COPY'

¶47

SECTION^OFFICER

¶48

"'13ffi 33lS3lXH:gX1,",".:"i',S"t3Jg"?3"r1%i'r

¶49