Contract termination challenge fails where liquidation and going-concern acquisition leave no viable legal footing to pursue the writ petition.

A writ challenge to cancellation of a contract and issuance of a fresh tender was found unsustainable after the corporate debtor entered liquidation and its business was acquired as a going concern. The principle of finality attached to an approved resolution plan was held inapplicable because the dispute arose in liquidation, not under resolution. The Court also noted that the petitioner lacked a viable legal footing to maintain the challenge in the post-acquisition structure, and therefore no relief could be granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition challenging cancellation of the contract and the fresh tender could be entertained in view of the corporate debtor having undergone insolvency resolution and liquidation, and the subsequent acquisition of the business as a going concern.

Analysis: The contract dispute was examined in the backdrop of the corporate insolvency process, liquidation of the corporate debtor, and the acquisition arrangement by which the business was transferred as a going concern to a third party. The Court held that the principle relating to finality of claims under an approved resolution plan did not assist the petitioner, since the matter arose in liquidation and not under a resolution plan. It was also noted that the petitioner had no legal existence in the manner asserted before the Court, and the challenge could not be maintained at its instance after the acquisition and substitution of the business structure.

Conclusion: The petition was not entertainable at the instance of the petitioner and the challenge to the cancellation and fresh tender failed.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to grant any relief because the petitioner, in the circumstances brought about by liquidation and acquisition, no longer had a sustainable basis to pursue the writ challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to contractual termination cannot be maintained by an entity that has ceased to have a viable legal footing to prosecute it after liquidation and acquisition, and the rule of finality attached to an approved resolution plan does not govern liquidation proceedings.

---