K.N. MARZOOK Vs. DHANLAXMI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P13 issued by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Delhi. The petitioner states that the 3 rd respondent herein obtained some credit facilities from the 1 st respondent herein, of which the petitioner was the personal guarantor. The 1st respondent has initiated proceedings under the provisions of Sec. 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short the 'IBC') before the NCLT, Delhi, read with provisions of Sec. 60 of the IBC. The petitioner states that in Ext.P1, the name of one Mathew George was shown as a personal guarantor, as against the petitioner herein. The 1st respondent bank, when it came to realise this error/mistake, sought to rectify the name of the personal guarantor in Ext.P1 application, and the order at Ext.P3 dtd. 5/12/2023 has been issued by the NCLT, permitting the 1 st respondent herein a weeks' time to make the necessary changes. The petitioner further avers that on the basis of the afore, it is only when the NCLT issued the order at Ext.P6 dtd. 23/1/2024, the petitioner comes into the picture, when the petitioner's name is shown as the personal guarantor for the first time. Ultimately, by the impugned order at Ext.P13 dtd. 10/12/2024, the NCLT permitted initiation of the personal insolvency proceedings against the petitioner herein. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P13 as above that the petitioner is before this Court through the captioned writ petition.

(2.) Heard Sri.Shinu J.Pillai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.C.K. Karunakaran, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent bank.

(3.) A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1 st respondent herein, essentially seeking to challenge the maintainability of this writ petition, with reference to Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, as well as contending that if at all the petitioner requires to challenge Ext.P13 order, the petitioner has an alternate remedy. A reply affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner.