Bombay High Court Fines Litigant ₹50,000 for Filing Writ Petition Despite A Pending IBC Appeal

Tanya S. 2 min read October 25, 2025 at 5:01 pm

The Bombay High Court has imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on a litigant for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when an appeal on the same issue was already pending under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

A Division Bench of Justices RI Chagla and Farhan P Dubash passed the order in the case Shripal Sevantilal Morakhia v NCLT, observing that the writ petition was “an unnecessary duplication of proceedings.”

The petition challenged an August 4, 2025 order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which had merely reserved the matter for orders. Morakhia also sought to stay the implementation of a resolution plan approved on May 7, 2025, and requested the NCLT to expedite its decision on his pending application.

He argued that the NCLT had failed to deliver its judgment within the 30-day period mandated under Rule 150 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which requires orders to be pronounced “as soon as practicable, but not later than thirty days from the final hearing.”

However, the successful resolution applicant and other stakeholders contended that the writ petition was a misuse of process since Morakhia had already appealed the same issue before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

The High Court noted that the NCLAT, by its order dated August 21, 2025, had already acknowledged the pending issue and stated that once the NCLT’s order was pronounced, it could be added to the record of the ongoing appeal.

Since the appellate remedy had already been invoked, the Bench ruled that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court also observed that the petitioner continued to argue the matter even after being informed that it was not maintainable, thus wasting the court’s time.

As a result, the Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 on Morakhia, directing that the amount be paid to the Indian Red Cross Society, Mumbai.

Representation:

For Petitioner: Advocates Pratik Sarkar and Khirbha SG, instructed by Vidhi Legal.
For Respondent No. 2: Advocates Shyam Kapadia, Kunal Kaul, Fatema Kachwalla and Virgil Braganza, instructed by JSA.
For Respondent No. 3: Advocates Bhalchandra Palav, Aniket Dighe and Pinky Pawar.
For Respondent No. 4: Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat with Advocates Anirudh Gambhir, Madhav Kanoria and Surbhi Pareek, instructed by Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.