Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Rohinton Fali Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and V. Ramasubramanian

JUDGMENT

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. Two seminal questions of importance namely:

i) Whether the High Court ought to interfere, Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, with an Order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal in a proceeding under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, ignoring the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and if so, under what circumstances; and

ii) Whether questions of fraud can be inquired into by the NCLT/NCLAT in the proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, arise for our consideration in these appeals.

Brief background facts

3. There are three appeals on hand, one filed by the Resolution Applicant, the second filed by the Corporate Debtor through the Resolution Professional and the third filed by the Committee of Creditors, all of which challenge an Interim Order passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka in a writ petition, staying the operation of a direction contained in the order of the NCLT, on a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Resolution Professional.

4. The background facts leading to the filing of the above appeals, in brief, are as follows:

i) A company by name M/s. Udhyaman Investments Pvt. Ltd. which is the twelfth Respondent in the first of these three appeals, claiming to be a Financial Creditor, moved an application before the NCLT Chennai, Under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the IBC, 2016), against M/s. Tiffins Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd., the Corporate Debtor (which is the fourth Respondent in the first of these three appeals and which is also the Appellant in the next appeal).

ii) By an Order dated 12.03.2018, NCLT Chennai admitted the application, ordered the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolu........