Corporate debtor writ maintainability fails during CIRP as IRP controls management and litigation authority.

Writ petitions filed in the name of a corporate debtor were not maintainable once insolvency proceedings had been admitted, moratorium declared, and an interim resolution professional appointed. Under section 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the board of directors stood suspended and the interim resolution professional acquired control of management and authority to act for the company, including for compliance with legal requirements. A company could not pursue writ relief through its own officer while that statutory control remained with the interim resolution professional. The petitions were dismissed, with liberty left to the interim resolution professional to take appropriate proceedings if advised.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions were maintainable when the corporate debtor was already under a corporate insolvency resolution process and an interim resolution professional had been appointed.

Analysis: The writ petitioner was already subject to insolvency proceedings under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the National Company Law Tribunal had admitted the application, appointed an interim resolution professional, and declared moratorium. In view of section 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the powers of the board of directors stood suspended and the interim resolution professional became vested with management of the corporate debtor and authority to act on its behalf, including compliance with legal requirements. A writ filed in the name of the company through its own officer, while the interim resolution professional was in control of the company, could not be maintained by the company in that manner.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable and were dismissed, leaving it open to the interim resolution professional to take appropriate proceedings if so advised.

---