Section 60(5) does not support a fresh group CIRP petition where the same project dispute is already pending in appeal.

Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 gives the Tribunal jurisdiction over questions arising in relation to insolvency proceedings, but it does not authorise a fresh petition seeking group CIRP relief in the manner prayed for. The Tribunal found the petition maintainable neither on the statutory basis invoked nor on the facts, because the same project-linked controversy was already pending in appellate proceedings. It also held that the petitioner had not approached with clean hands, having relied on overlapping pleadings and claims after earlier insolvency proceedings on the same project. The petitioner was further estopped from re-agitating the same controversy through another petition, and insolvency relief was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition was maintainable under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of group CIRP against the corporate debtor along with the proforma respondent; (ii) Whether the petitioner had approached the Tribunal with clean hands; (iii) Whether the petitioner was estopped from invoking the insolvency process again after having already pursued an earlier petition concerning the same project.

Issue (i): Whether the petition was maintainable under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of group CIRP against the corporate debtor along with the proforma respondent.

Analysis: The petition was filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Section 60(5) of the Code and Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. The Tribunal held that Section 60(5) confers jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of applications and questions arising in relation to insolvency proceedings, but does not provide a basis for filing a fresh company petition seeking group insolvency in the manner prayed for. The Tribunal also noted that the controversy concerning the project and the role of the entities was already pending in appeal before the appellate forum.

Conclusion: The petition was held not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner had approached the Tribunal with clean hands.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the petitioner had earlier pursued insolvency proceedings in relation to the same project and had relied on overlapping pleadings, documents, and claims while attempting to expand the scope of the present petition. It further observed inconsistencies in the manner of institution of the proceedings and held that the petition was filed in a casual and misconceived manner to cover perceived deficiencies in the earlier proceedings.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the petitioner had not approached with clean hands.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner was estopped from invoking the insolvency process again after having already pursued an earlier petition concerning the same project.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the petitioner had already invoked Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in an earlier petition relating to the same project and had sought to rely on the same factual foundation. Since the earlier proceedings and connected issues were already sub judice before the appellate forum, the Tribunal held that the petitioner could not re-agitate the matter by filing another petition on substantially the same controversy.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the petitioner was estopped from maintaining the present petition.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to commence insolvency proceedings in the present petition and found no prima facie basis to grant the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not authorise the filing of a fresh petition to seek group insolvency relief where the same project-linked controversy is already the subject of pending insolvency and appellate proceedings.

---