Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22727
WP No. 10289 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 10289 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. GULAM MUSTAFA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.6, GM PEARL, I STAGE,
I PHASE, BTM LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 068.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR AND
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI. GULAM MUSTAFA
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL ALW
SRI. ARJUN RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. INDIA HOUSING FUND
A CATEGORY II ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT FUND
INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA,
(ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT FUND)
REGULATIONS 2012
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
360 ONE CENTRE,
KAMALA MILLS COMPOUND
SENAPATI BAPAT MARG,
LOWER PAREL,
Digitally
signed by
CHAITHRA A
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22727
WP No. 10289 of 2026
HC-KAR
MUMBAI - 400 013.
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY
INVESTMENT MANAGER,
360 ONE ALTERNATES
ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD.
2. INDIA HOUSING FUND SERIES II
A CATEGORY II ALTERNATIVE
INVESTMENT FUND
INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA,
(ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT FUND)
REGULATIONS 2012
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
360 ONE CENTRE,
KAMALA MILLS COMPOUND
SENAPATI BAPAT MARG,
LOWER PAREL,
MUMBAI - 400 013.
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY
INVESTMENT MANAGER,
360 ONE ALTERNATES
ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINAPPA, SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI. PINAZ KERSI KARKARIA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 17.03.2026 PASSED BY THE NCLT IN CP (IB)
NO. 90 OF 2025 (COPY NOT AVAILABLE - PROOF OF
UNAVAILABILITY EVIDENCED AT ANNEXURE-T) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22727
WP No. 10289 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed calling in question
the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the National
Company Law Tribunal (for short, “NCLT”) in C.P. (IB)
No.90/2025 and for a consequential direction to the NCLT
to consider I.A. No.1094/2026 prior to passing any orders
in the main company petition.
2. The facts of the case are as under:
The petitioner is a real estate developer engaged in
execution of a project styled as “Global Techies Town”
under a Joint Development Agreement. In order to finance
the said project, the petitioner raised substantial funds
through issuance of secured, non-convertible debentures
on a private placement basis, categorized broadly into
Senior and Junior Debentures aggregating to several
hundred crores.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22727
WP No. 10289 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. It is not in dispute that disputes arose between
the petitioner and certain debenture holders, including one
Piramal, culminating in initiation of proceedings under
Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016(for short "IBC"). Though a settlement was entered
into between the petitioner and Primal, the said
proceedings were not withdrawn, resulting in multiplicity
of litigation before the NCLT.
4. Parallelly, another financial creditor initiated
proceedings in C.P. (IB) No.105/2023, which came to be
admitted, leading to imposition of moratorium under
Section 14 of the IBC. It is also borne out from records
that the petitioner subsequently cleared the dues in the
said proceedings, resulting in closure of the petition.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite
the earlier settlement and subsequent developments, the
respondents have pursued parallel proceedings, including
restoration applications, and that the NCLT, without
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22727
WP No. 10289 of 2026
HC-KAR
adjudicating the petitioner’s interlocutory applications, has
proceeded in a manner prejudicial to the petitioner’s
rights.
6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that I.A. No.1094/2025 and
connected applications, which go to the root of the
maintainability of the proceedings and the subsistence of
alleged default, ought to have been considered as a
preliminary issue before any further steps are taken in the
main petition.
7. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing
for the respondents would submit that the proceedings
under Section 7 of the IBC are summary in nature and
that the adjudicating authority is required to confine itself
to the existence of debt and default. It is further
contended that interlocutory applications cannot stall the
statutory mandate under the Code.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22727
WP No. 10289 of 2026
HC-KAR
8. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that
certain home buyers have filed Intervention Application
No.13/2025 asserting independent rights and contending
that their interests would be seriously prejudiced if the
proceedings are concluded without hearing them.
9. In the backdrop of the rival submissions, the
following point arises for consideration:
"Whether this Court should interfere with the
impugned order and direct the NCLT to decide
specific interlocutory applications in a particular
sequence?"
10. At the outset, this Court is of the considered
view that the relief sought by the petitioner, in substance,
amounts to inviting this Court to micromanage the
proceedings pending before the adjudicating authority
under the IBC. Such an exercise is impermissible in
exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22727
WP No. 10289 of 2026
HC-KAR
11. The scheme of the IBC makes it abundantly
clear that proceedings under Section 7 of IBC are time-
bound and are to be adjudicated on the limited parameters
of existence of financial debt and occurrence of default.
The adjudicating authority is vested with discretion to
regulate its own procedure and to decide the sequence in
which applications are to be taken up.
12. The petitioner’s attempt to seek a mandamus
directing the NCLT to first decide I.A. No.1094/2025, in
the opinion of this Court, cannot be countenanced. No
litigant can dictate the course of adjudication before a
judicial or quasi-judicial forum.
13. However, this Court cannot also lose sight of
the fact that Intervention Application No.13/2025 has been
filed by home buyers, who prima facie assert independent
and substantive rights in respect of the project in
question. The rights of such third parties, particularly in
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22727
WP No. 10289 of 2026
HC-KAR
real estate insolvency matters, have received statutory
recognition and judicial emphasis.
14. The presence of such stakeholders necessitates
that their locus and participation be determined at the
threshold. Any adjudication in their absence, if they are
found to be necessary or proper parties, may result in
multiplicity of proceedings and prejudice to their interests.
15. Therefore, while this Court declines to grant any
indulgence insofar as the petitioner’s prayer to prioritize its
interlocutory applications is concerned, it is of the view
that the adjudicating authority ought to first consider the
intervention application filed by the home buyers, as it has
a direct bearing on the composition of parties and the
nature of adjudication.
16. This direction is issued not as an interference
with the merits of the proceedings, but to ensure that the
adjudicatory process remains fair, comprehensive, and in
consonance with principles of natural justice.
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22727
WP No. 10289 of 2026
HC-KAR
17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not
inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 17.03.2026
nor to grant the relief sought by the petitioner in terms of
prioritizing I.A. No.1094/2025.
18. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition stands disposed of without
granting the relief sought by the petitioner;
(ii) The National Company Law Tribunal is directed
to first consider and decide Intervention Application
No.13/2025 filed by the home buyers, in accordance
with law;
(iii) Thereafter, the NCLT shall proceed to consider
the application seeking admission under Section 7 of
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, along
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22727
WP No. 10289 of 2026
HC-KAR
with all pending interlocutory applications, in such
manner as it deems fit;
(iv) All contentions of the parties are kept open to
be urged before the NCLT;
(v) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ALB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 93