| The Tax Publishers 2022 TaxPub(CL) 2858 (Tel-HC) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
Article 226
Where company filed petition against order of Adjudicating Authority regarding payment of admitted supply of electricity, but there was availability of alternative remedy under IBC and no violation of principal natural justice was made, the petition was not maintainable.
|
Power of High Courts to issue certain writs - Petition against order of Adjudicating Authority regarding payment of admitted supply of electricity - Availability of alternative remedy under IBC - Maintainability of petition
Corporate debtor supplied electricity to company (SPDCL), but the company committed default in payment of the dues. However, corporate insolvency resolution process was initiated against the corporate debtor. Resolution professional (RP) of the corporate debtor filed an application under section 60 for direction to company for payment of admitted supply of electricity, which was allowed by Adjudicating Authority. The company filed petition against the order, but the objection was raised regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under IBC. Held: There is no dispute to the proposition that having regard to the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, availability of alternative remedy is not really a bar to exercise such jurisdiction. Constitutional Courts have imposed upon themselves self-restraint in not exercising such jurisdiction barring in certain exceptional circumstances, such as, violation of principles of natural justice, when the vires of a Statute is challenged, etc. However, the same is not the position in the present case. Further, the fact that the writ petitioners did not file appeal within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation cannot be a ground to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the petition is not maintainable.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Against the petitioner
A.Y. :
IN THE TELANGANA HIGH COURT
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ. & C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J.
Southern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd. & Anr. v. National Company Law Tribunal & Ors.
W.P. No. 15090 of 2020
29 August, 2022
Petitioners by: P. Sriram, Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh for B. Harinath Rao
Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 by: S. Ravi, Senior Counsel
Ujjal Bhuyan, CJ.
Heard Mr. P. Sriram, learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh representing Mr. B. Harinath Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|