Madras High Court Dismisses as Withdrawn Writ Petition Challenging Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board Order. Petitioner Granted Liberty to Re-initiate Proceedings After Conclusion of Pending Company Appeal Before National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

High Court: Madras High Court
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The petitioner, S. Hari Karthik, challenged an order dated 10 September 2025 passed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) in proceeding IBBI/DC/294/2025. The petitioner alleged that the order was illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondents were the IBBI, the Union of India through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, and Kineta Global Limited. The petitioner was represented by counsel Mr. J. Manivannan. The Union of India was represented by Additional Solicitor General Mr. ARL. Sundaresan, the IBBI by Mr. K.S. Jeyaganesan, and the third respondent by Mr. S. Vedhavel. At the hearing on 16 March 2026, the petitioner's counsel made an endorsement and sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to re-initiate it after the adjudication of Company Appeal (INS) No. 456 of 2025, which was pending before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The court, comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Surender, accepted this submission and endorsement. No substantive legal issues were argued or decided. The court did not examine the merits of the challenge to the IBBI order, nor did it interpret any statutory provisions or legal principles. The order was purely procedural, allowing the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice to their right to approach the court again after the conclusion of the NCLAT proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. No costs were imposed. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed. The court's order merely recorded the withdrawal and did not result in any binding precedent or ratio decidendi.

Issue of Consideration

downloaded (49)

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to re-initiate after adjudication of Company Appeal (INS) No. 456 of 2025 pending before NCLAT, Chennai. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (03) 93

W.P. No. 8570 of 2026 and W.M.P. Nos. 9249 and 9250 of 2026

2026-03-16

S.M. Subramaniam, K. Surender

J. Manivannan, ARL. Sundaresan, K.S. Jeyaganesan, S. Vedhavel

S. Hari Karthik

Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India, Union of India, Kineta Global Limited

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India.

Remedy Sought

To quash and set aside the IBBI order dated 10.09.2025 (IBBI/DC/294/2025) as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice.

Filing Reason

The petitioner was aggrieved by the IBBI order and sought to have it declared illegal.

Previous Decisions

Company Appeal (INS) No. 456 of 2025 pending before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.

Submissions/Arguments

Counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to re-initiate after adjudication of Company Appeal (INS) No. 456 of 2025 pending before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.

Judgment Excerpts

this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

Procedural History

W.P. No. 8570 of 2026 was filed challenging the IBBI order dated 10.09.2025. At the hearing, the petitioner's counsel endorsed and sought withdrawal with liberty to re-initiate after disposal of Company Appeal (INS) No. 456 of 2025 pending before NCLAT. The court accepted the submission and dismissed the petition as withdrawn with the requested liberty.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Considers Application for Rejection of Plaint Based on Unregistered Lease and Determination of Lease. Court Examines Whether Plaint Discloses Cause of Action for Specific Performance and Monetary Claims Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Successive Bail Petition in Double Murder Case Under IPC Sections 302, 120B. Court Finds Strong Prima Facie Evidence from Eyewitnesses and Postmortem Reports, Holds No Change in Circumstances.