Ca V.Venkata Siva Kumar v. Shri. R.Subramaniakumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.6.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.A.No.1232 of 2018 CA.V.Venkata Siva Kumar ...Appellant/Petitioner

Versus

1. Shri.R.Subramaniakumar Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office Buildings, Centeen Block, I Floor, No.763, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

2. Mrs.V.Malarvizhi, Assistant General Manager (IOB), representing COC of Oceanic Edibles International Ltd., Central Office Buildings, Centeen Block, I Floor, No.763, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

3. National Company Law Tribunal, rep. by Assistant Registrar, Corporate Bhawan, II Floor, North Beach Road, Mannady, George Town, Chennai 600 001.

4. The Chief General Manager & Secretary, Secretary's Department, Reserve Bank of India, 16th Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai

5. Central Vigilance Commission, rep. by its Director, Satarkata Bhavan, A Block, GPO Complex, INA, new Delhi 110 023.

...Respondents/Respondents

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 16.4.2018 passed in W.P.SR No.23210 of 2018 filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India Praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 06.03.2018 by National Company Law Tribunal Single Bench CA/75/IB/2018 and CA/86/IB/2018 in CP/563/(IB)/2017 has been filed by the resolution professional Venkata Sivakumar and members of CoCs respectively under 27(1 to 5) of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code and Regulation 18 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Insolvency Regulation) Regulations, 2016 in the matter of ICICI Bank Limited Vs. M/s.Oceanic Edibles International Ltd., and Quash the same as null void, nonest and without jurisdiction. For appellant :CA V.Venkata Sivakumar, Party in person

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) Heard the appellant, who appeared as party in person.

2. This writ appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition in rejecting the writ petition at SR stage itself.

3. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner is that he was appointed as a Resolution Professional in the matter of recovery of loans availed by one M/s.Oceanic Edibles International Limited from various Banks and after some time, when the relationship between the appellant/petitioner got strained with the the Committee of Creditors, Applications were filed before the National Company Law Tribunal, Single Bench which ended in removal of the present appellant/petitioner from the position of Resolution Professional which he had challenged in the writ petition.

4. The learned Single Judge, having heard the grievance of the appellant/petitioner with regard to maintainability of the writ petition and also referring to the provisions viz., Sections 61 (1) and (2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, held that there is an effective and efficacious statutory appeal remedy before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal is available to the appellant and observing so, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition as not maintainable.

5. Having heard the appellant in person and perused the materials available on record, we find that as per Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, if any person is aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority, may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and

sub-section (2) of Section 61 stipulate a time limit of 30 days for preferring such appeal and extendable by another 15 days thereafter by the Appellate Tribunal, on it being satisfied by sufficient cause for such delay.

6. Referring to the said provisions, the learned Single Judge held that the remedy is open to the appellant to go before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. However, once again the appellant-party in person tried canvass us, relying on a Division Bench Judgment of Gujarat High Court in STATE OF GUJARAT v. UNION OF INDIA the circumstances under which the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 can be sought to be exercised. He would further submit that he had been victimized for his attempts to bring out some fraudulent activity of swindling of public money under the guise of loans and financial assistance to debtors without proper security and thereafter, the banks running behind the debtors for recovery of the same.

7. However, we are of the view that when there is a statutory appeal remedy available to the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ petition at SR stage, however granting three weeks time to file the appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and directing the Appellate Tribunal to consider the same on merits.

8. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. However, we appreciate the intention of the appellant in trying to bring out the fraudulent activities in public interest. All the contentions of the appellant are left open to be raised by him before the Appellate Tribunal and in this regard, we extend the time to prefer the appeal by another six weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such filing of the appeal, the same may be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

ssk.

To:

1. The Assistant Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal, Corporate Bhawan, II Floor, North Beach Road, Mannady, George Town, Chennai 600 001.

2. The Chief General Manager & Secretary, Secretary's Department, Reserve Bank of India, 16th Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai

3. The Director, Central Vigilance Commission, Satarkata Bhavan, A Block, GPO Complex, INA, new Delhi 110 023.

+1cc to Mr.V.VenkataSivakumar,Advocate, SR.No 38491. W.A.No.1232 of 2018 EV(CO) BM 16/07/2018.