CANARA BANK Vs. DUNLOP POLYMERS PVT LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dtd. 5/6/2019 passed by the NCLT in CP.(IB) No.123/BB/2019; he seeks direction to the fourth respondent to take disciplinary proceedings against the second respondent in respect of certain lapses. Further, he also seeks a direction to the fifth respondent to conduct investigation into the conduct of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and other related persons.

(2.) After service of notice, the contesting respondents having entered appearance through their counsel resist the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order. They also contend that the directions as sought, for conducting the enquiry or the investigation cannot be granted in the fact matrix of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that now the second respondent is dead and therefore, in his stead, some other person be appointed as the Resolution Professional. She also relies upon certain rulings in support of her contention stating that the impugned order cannot be challenged in the writ jurisdiction. So contending, they seek dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the respondents. The same is supported by the decision of the Apex Court in EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS (P) LTD., v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2020) 13 SCC 308. In similar maters this Court has already taken such a view and therefore, cannot make a deviation from the beaten track. In the above circumstances, this petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to lay a challenge to the impugned order elsewhere in accordance with law.