The Bombay High Court recently imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on a litigant for filing a writ petition against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that had only reserved a matter for orders, despite the litigant already having filed an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Division Bench, comprising Justices RI Chagla and Farhan P Dubash, held that such an order was not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and described the petition as an unnecessary duplication of proceedings.
The petitioner, Shripal Sevantilal Morakhia, challenged the NCLT Mumbai Bench’s order dated August 4, 2025, which had reserved its decision on an interim application. Morakhia sought to stay the implementation of a resolution plan approved on May 7, 2025, and requested directions to the NCLT for the expeditious disposal of his pending application. He contended that the NCLT had failed to deliver its decision within the 30-day period prescribed under Rule 150 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which mandates that the Tribunal pronounce its orders “as soon as practicable, but not later than thirty days from the final hearing.”
The resolution plan was defended by the successful resolution applicant and other stakeholders, who argued that the writ petition was a misuse of process since the same challenge was already pending in appeal. The High Court noted that Morakhia had filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) challenging the same NCLT-approved resolution plan. The NCLAT, by its order dated August 21, 2025, had recorded that the NCLT’s interim application was reserved for orders and observed that once the order was pronounced, it could be brought on record in the pending appeal.
Holding that the appellate remedy had already been invoked, the High Court concluded that the writ petition could not be entertained. It further remarked that the petitioner’s insistence on pressing arguments after being told the matter was not maintainable wasted the court’s time. Consequently, the Court imposed ₹50,000 as costs, directing that the amount be paid to the Indian Red Cross Society, Mumbai.
The petitioner was represented by Advocates Pratik Sarkar and Khirbha SG, instructed by Vidhi Legal. Respondents were represented by Advocates Shyam Kapadia, Kunal Kaul, Fatema Kachwalla, and Virgil Braganza, instructed by JSA, and Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat with Advocates Anirudh Gambhir, Madhav Kanoria, and Surbhi Pareek, instructed by Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.