ADV. (CA) V. VENKATA SIVAKUMAR v. THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Adv.(CA) V. Venkata Sivakumar (erstwhile liquidator of The Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd.), filed Writ Petition No.39483 of 2025 under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to submit for adjudication allegations of fraud, collusion, undervaluation and suppression pertaining to the scheme of compromise in Company Amalgamation Application No.75 of 2025 and the conduct of the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents alleged to be in violation of the objectives of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The matter proceeded before the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras. The petitioner, appearing in person, articulated alleged irregularities in the scheme of compromise. The court heard appearances on behalf of various respondents and issued a short order dismissing the petition while granting liberty to pursue statutory remedies.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a writ under Article 226 is maintainable to challenge matters pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) where the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides an appellate remedy under Section 61(1).
2. Whether the petitioner must first exhaust the appellate remedy under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and thereafter, if aggrieved, appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 62.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• There are several irregularities in the scheme of compromise in Company Amalgamation Application No.75 of 2025.
• The petitioner raised issues of fraud, collusion, undervaluation and suppression concerning the conduct of the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents, alleging violation of the objectives of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
• The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to adjudicate those issues, relying on liberty earlier granted in W.P.No.4151 of 2024 dated 27.03.2025.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied the statutory appellate scheme under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It noted Section 61(1) contemplates that any person aggrieved by an adjudicating authority's order must prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Only after exhausting that remedy, and if aggrieved by the appellate authority's order, may a party invoke Section 62 to approach the Supreme Court. On that basis the court held that a writ under Article 226 challenging matters pending before the NCLT is not maintainable. The court therefore granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedies "in the manner known to law" and dismissed the writ petition.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Direct consequences:

• The writ petition was dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
• The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue statutory remedies: to prefer an appeal under Section 61 to the NCLAT, and, if dissatisfied with the appellate order, to approach the Supreme Court under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
• No costs were imposed.

The opinion does not articulate any broader precedent beyond applying the statutory appellate scheme of the IBC.