Maintainability of writ relief failed where an erstwhile director filed the petition and conduct showed lack of bona fides.

A writ petition challenging an insolvency order was found to suffer from a maintainability defect because it was filed by the company through an erstwhile director after appointment of the insolvency professional, and the impugned order was appealable. The Court also held that repeated requests for adjournment on assurances of settlement, without any settlement materialising or any deposit being made despite repeated opportunities, showed lack of bona fides. On that basis, discretionary relief under Article 226 was declined, and the challenge to the insolvency order was not entertained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition filed by the company through its erstwhile director was maintainable and whether the availability of an appealable remedy warranted refusal of writ relief. (ii) Whether the petitioner's conduct in seeking repeated adjournments and assurances of settlement disentitled it to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition filed by the company through its erstwhile director was maintainable and whether the availability of an appealable remedy warranted refusal of writ relief.

Analysis: The petition was presented by the company through an erstwhile director after the insolvency professional had been appointed. The challenge was directed against an order passed in insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the order was stated to be appealable. In these circumstances, the petition suffered from a serious maintainability objection.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on this ground and relief was not available to the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner's conduct in seeking repeated adjournments and assurances of settlement disentitled it to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The petitioner repeatedly sought adjournments before the Tribunal and before the High Court on the assurance that settlement would be explored, but no settlement materialised and no amount was deposited despite repeated opportunities. The Court treated this conduct as lacking in bona fides and held that discretionary writ relief cannot be granted to a party that does not honour its assurances or cooperate with the proceedings.

Conclusion: The petitioner was disentitled to discretionary relief under Article 226.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on both maintainability and conduct, and the challenge to the impugned insolvency order was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may refuse discretionary relief where the petition is filed through an erstwhile director after insolvency control has shifted and where the petitioner's conduct shows lack of bona fides and abuse of adjournments, especially when an appealable remedy is available.

---