Petition seeking directions to Honble nclat to inquire / violation of Regulations in the matter concerning jaypore sugars in Liquidation

[
Petition seeking directions to Honble nclat to inquire violation of Regulations in the matter concerning jaypore sugars in Liquidation

23/10, 11:04] Sekarreporter: MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P. No. of 2025

Adv. (CA) V. Venkata Sivakumar
Erstwhile liquidator of JSCL
No 10/11 Dr. Subbarayan Nagar Main Road
Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024
Email: arunasri.siva@gmail.com
……Petitioner / Appellant
1. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal(NCLAT)
Represented by Registrar
2nd & 3rd Floor of Mahanagar Doorsanchar Sadan
(M.T.N.L. Building), 9,CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi — 110003
Email:registrar-nclat@nic.in
…1st Respondent
2. The National Company Law Tribunal(NCLT)
Represented by Registrar
Corporate Bhawan, 3rd Floor, No. 29, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600001
Email: registrar-nclt@gov.in
…2nd Respondent
3. IDBI Bank Ltd.
Representing removed Secured Creditors from SCC
by Mr. Mohanasundram – Asset Recovery Division
115, Annasalai Saidapet,
Chennai 600 015
Email: mohanasundaram.m@idbi.co.in
…3rd Respondent
4. Mrs. Anita Prabhu
Promoter Director
Old. No. 12, New No. 29,
Satynarayana Avenue, Boat Club,
R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600028
Email: anitaa_40@yahoo.com
…4th Respondent

5. Mr. S. Hari Karthik
Liquidator of M/s The Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd
Old No. 31, New No. 29, 2nd Floor
Nageswara Road, Nungambakkam
Chennai-600034
Email: harikarthikcscma@gmail.com
… 5th Respondent
6. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
Represented by Rajesh Kumar – General Manager
7th Floor, MayurBhawan, Shankar Market
Connaught Circus, New Delhi – 110 001
Email: rajesh.k10@ibbi.gov.in
…6th Respondent
7. Standard Assets India Private Limited
Proposed Resolution Applicant
D.12, Phase-1, IDA Jeedimetla,
Hyderabad, Telangana, 500055
Email: himapriya1990@gmail.com
…7th Respondent

SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE

SHORT POINTS FOR ADMISSION

1. Fraudulent Lending by Public Sector Banks: Fraudulent lending has been established through multiple records the value of the company as per PSU Banks and Promoters having a claim of Rs. 900 Crores is Rs. 2000 Crores () now been sold for Rs. 317 Crores that too a real estate company.

2. Maintainability under Article 226/227 Procedural violations by 2nd Respondent: The Tribunal functions under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. There are serious regulatory violations by the 2nd Respondent. The petition merely seeks directions against the 1st Respondent (Appellate Authority).
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arunkumar Jagatramka Para 89:
we do take this opportunity to offer a note of caution for the NCLT and NCLAT, functioning as the Adjudicatory Authority and Appellate Authority under the IBC respectively, from judicially interfering in the framework envisaged under the IBC. As we have noted earlier in the judgment, the IBC was introduced in order to overhaul the insolvency and bankruptcy regime in India. As such, it is a carefully considered and well thought out piece of legislation which sought to shed away the practices of the past

3. Locus Standi of Petitioner: The Petitioner, being the erstwhile Liquidator (Order 217), is a public servant. Liquidation is a continuous process and the professional may change over time. Proceedings under Section 230 are non-adversarial in nature. The Petitioner also has a pending claim of ₹220 Lakhs under litigation. (Ref: NCLT Order dated 7-10.)

4. Liberal Interpretation of Locus in Cases Involving Fraud: Where fraud is evident on the face of the record and involves public funds, courts have held that locus standi must be interpreted liberally to ensure justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court A.V. Pappaya Shastri VS. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Reported in 2007 (4) in which it is held as follows: “….A Judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court, tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non-est in the eye of the law. Such a Judgment, decree or order – by the first court or by the final Court has to be treated as nullity by every court, superior or inferior…”. In the same Judgement the Supreme Court made it clear that the court which passed such an order is at liberty to recall the same

THE FACTS IN DETAIL
5. The Petitioner while acting as liquidator, made substantial efforts that created a value of approximately Rs. 2000 Crores for the company under going liquidation as per the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, repeatedly confirmed by the Respondents and also recorded in the judicial orders of NCLT & NCLAT.

6. The Erstwhile promoters, who earlier refused to take back the company at Rs. 400 Crores with Rs. 100 Crores down payment during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution (CIR) process, subsequently offered to pay total claims more than Rs.900 Crores during the liquidation phase.

7. The Petitioner refused to comply with illegal directives orchestrated in collusion between IDBI Bank and the promoters. Consequent to the petitioner’s refusal, a conspiracy between IDBI Bank and the promoters resulted in the petitioner’s removal as liquidator.

8. The 5th Respondent, who is aligned with the promoters, was appointed as the new liquidator. Multiple false cases have been filed against the petitioner before various forums with the motive to defame and harass him. When the petitioner’s appeal against removal came up for hearing before the Supreme Court, the respondents made a false statement regarding the resolution plan claiming that 100% settlement offer already finalized. Therefore the petitioner in the interest of the Nation voluntarily agreed not to press for continuation, as a result, the Supreme Court set aside all adverse findings against the petitioner by the NCLT and NCLAT.

9. IDBI Bank and the new liquidator’s assertions before the Supreme Court on 22nd October 2024 were found to be false. However, the new liquidator, after an undue delay of 660 days (as against the statutorily permitted 90 days), filed Company Appeal A No. 75 of 2025 seeking an extension of time on 30-09-2025, mentioning the sale of the company to a private entity has been approved by IDBI Bank and lenders for a paltry sum of Rs. 400 Crores, despite the company’s admitted value exceeding Rs. 2000 Crores.
10. The Petitioner, anticipating misuse of the process and to protect against multiple litigations, filed Writ Petition 4151 of 2024. However, the Hon’ble Division Bench observed that unless tangible acts of sale at undervaluation materialized, no cause of action had arisen, allowing liberty to approach upon such occurrence. Hence, the present petition seeks directions to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which has apparently failed to properly inquire into the acts of the 4th liquidator, who operates under the control of the Adjudicating Authority (AA), and who has repeatedly granted extensions of time without recording valid reasons.

11. The delay of 660 days, far exceeding the 90-day period prescribed by law, exemplifies how certain powerful players are exploiting the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to enrich themselves at the expense of government banks and the nation.
16. Accordingly, the present writ petition is filed in continuation of liberty granted by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in WP No. 4151 of 2024, permitting the Petitioner to approach the competent forum in the event of illegality or fraud being noticed in the liquidation proceedings of the Corporate Debtor. Wherein valuable public assets worth more than ₹2000 Crores are being siphoned off for a meager consideration of only ₹400 Crores. Hence the Petitioner respectfully prays for this Hon’ble Courts kind indulgence in the interest of our Nation.
Dated at Chennai on this 7th day of October 2025

Adv.(CA) V. Venkata Sivakumar
Petitioner-in- Person
[23/10, 11:05] Sekarreporter: 8:34

92

20251022_204…

hcmadras.tn.gov.in

W.P. No.39483 of 2025

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.,

and

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.,

(Order of the Court was made

by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Admit.

learned 2. Mr.Varun Srinivasan, counsel accepts notice for the third respondent, Mr.J.Manivannan, learned counsel accepts notice for the fifth respondent, Mr.S.R.Sundar, learned counsel accepts notice for the sixth respondent and Mr.Vinod Kumar of M/s.J.Sagar Associates, learned counsel accepts notice for seventh respondent.

3. Notice to respondents 1, 2 and 4 returnable in two weeks. Private notice is also permitted.

4. Post after two weeks.

(S.M.S.J.)

(M.S.Q.J.)

17.10.2025

mmi

(1/2)