2022 (1) TMI 810

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r to approach the appropriate appellate forum for ventilating its grievance. 3. The first ground of review is that an appeal was maintainable against the orders challenged in the writ petition under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and not under Section 421(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short, 'the 2013 Act') as held. As far as such argument is concerned, an observation was recorded in the order under review, to the effect that Section 421(1) of the 2013 act specifically stipulates that any person aggrieved by "an order" of the Tribunal may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. However, ultimately the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er had filed application No.602/KB/2019 for a direction on the liquidator to adjudicate the proof of claim filed on November 21, 2017, it was neither pleaded clearly nor indicated in the writ petition bearing WPO No.11 of 2021, as to whether the matter arose from a proceeding under Part II of the Code, which relates to insolvency and liquidation of corporate debtors where the minimum amount of default is one lakh rupees. 10. In any event, Section 421(1) of the 2013 Act is the residuary provision for appeal and applies to all orders which are not appealable otherwise, including under Section 61 of the Code. 11. In view of there being no clear indication and/or pleading in the writ petition to that effect, it was held in the order under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rticle 226 of the Constitution of India, is illusory in nature, since it is most appropriate that the forum concerned itself, being in the best position to ascertain the veracity of such factual allegations, adjudicates such factual disputes. 16. Hence, the mere allegation of violation of Rule 44 of 2016 Rules could not be sufficient justification for this Court to invoke the writ jurisdiction.   17. An appeal, either under Section 421(1) of the 2013 Act or under Section 61 of the Code, would be a more efficacious and exhaustive remedy available to the petitioner in comparison to the writ petition. 18. As far as the judgments cited by the petitioner in connection with the review application are concerned, those primarily indic....