Writ interference with insolvency admission refused where no perversity was shown and repeated forum shopping justified costs.

A writ court will not interfere with an NCLT order admitting an insolvency application where the tribunal found that non-payment of a due debt constituted default and admission under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code followed. The Court also refused declaratory and prohibitory prayers attacking tribunal members and the operation of the SARFAESI Act, the RDB Act, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, finding no material basis and noting that substantially identical reliefs had already been pursued elsewhere. Repeated litigation, suppression and forum shopping were treated as abuse of process, justifying dismissal with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the NCLT order admitting the insolvency application and declining recall warranted interference under writ jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the prayers attacking the judges of the tribunal and seeking declarations against the operation of the SARFAESI Act, the RDB Act, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 were maintainable. (iii) Whether the petition was liable to be dismissed with costs for forum shopping, suppression and repeated litigation on the same issues.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the NCLT order admitting the insolvency application and declining recall warranted interference under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petition sought to overturn an extensive NCLT order passed in insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the tribunal's reasoning that non-payment of a debt that had become due constitutes default and that admission under Section 7 follows. The Court also noted that the petitioner had already invoked or could invoke the statutory appellate framework, and the writ challenge substantially re-agitated issues already placed before other forums.

Conclusion: The challenge to the NCLT order did not merit interference and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the prayers attacking the judges of the tribunal and seeking declarations against the operation of the SARFAESI Act, the RDB Act, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 were maintainable.

Analysis: The Court held that the allegations against the tribunal members were unsupported by any material circumstances and that no basis existed to treat the members as coram non judice. The broader declarations sought against the statutory schemes were found to be merely copied from prior proceedings and substantially identical to reliefs earlier pursued in other matters. The Court found no justification to entertain these declaratory and prohibitory prayers in the present petition.

Conclusion: The prayers attacking the tribunal members and the statutory regime were not entertained and failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the petition was liable to be dismissed with costs for forum shopping, suppression and repeated litigation on the same issues.

Analysis: The Court recorded that the petitioner had repeatedly filed proceedings in multiple forums challenging the same NCLT order and substantially identical prayers, while suppressing earlier challenges from the present Court. It characterised the conduct as forum shopping, misrepresentation and suppression, and also noted waste of judicial time. These features justified exemplary costs.

Conclusion: The petition was dismissed with costs for abuse of process.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed in its entirety, the tribunal orders were left undisturbed, and the petitioner was saddled with costs for repeated and abusive litigation.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not interfere with an insolvency admission order showing no perversity or illegality, especially where the petitioner re-litigates the same issues in multiple forums and suppresses prior proceedings; such abuse of process warrants dismissal with costs.

---