MOHAMMED ENTERPRISES (TANZANIA) LTD. versus FAROOQ ALI KHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 177 · Decided: 02-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 177 : 2025 INSC 25
Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. 
v. 
Farooq Ali Khan & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2025)
 03 January 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in interdicting CIRP 
proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Headnotes†
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.60(5)(c) – The High 
Court exercised the power of judicial review and interdicted 
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process – Correctness:
Held: The jurisdiction and power of the Adjudicating Authority 
under Section 60(5)(c) has already been reiterated by this Court 
in its various decisions – In the instant case, it is important to 
note that CIRP proceedings commenced on 26.10.2018, six 
years ago, and the resolution plan of the appellant was approved 
in 2020, four years back – The importance of concluding the 
CIRP proceedings was highlighted by this Court, on a number of 
occasions – It is also settled that an unjustified interference with 
the proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy 
Code 2016, breaches the discipline of law – In view of the delay 
in approaching the High Court, particularly when respondent 
no.1 himself has initiated proceedings under the Code by filing 
interlocutory applications seeking similar relief, this Court is of 
the opinion that High Court committed an error in entertaining 
the writ petition – Apart from delay and laches, High Court should 
have noted that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a complete 
code in itself, having sufficient checks and balances, remedial 
avenues and appeals – Adherence of protocols and procedures 
maintains legal discipline and preserves the balance between the 
need for order and the quest for justice – The supervisory and 
judicial review powers vested in High Courts represent critical 
constitutional safeguards, yet their exercise demands rigorous 
scrutiny and judicious application – This is certainly not a case for 
178
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the High Court to interdict CIRP proceedings under the Insolvency 
and Bankruptcy Code. [Paras 13, 14, 15]
Case Law Cited
CoC of KSK Mahanadai Power Company Limited v. M/s UP Power 
Corporation Limited; Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade 
Marks, Mumbai and Ors. [1998] Supp. 2 SCR 359 : (1998) 8 
SCC 1; Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish 
Kumar Gupta [2019] 16 SCR 275 : (2020) 8 SCC 531; Gujarat 
Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Amit Gupta [2021] 13 SCR 611 : 
(2021) 7 SCC 209 – referred to.
List of Acts
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
List of Keywords
Judicial Review by High Court; Supervisory powers of High Court; 
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process; Sufficient checks and 
balances; Remedial avenues; Appeals; Adherence of protocols; 
Procedures; Discipline of law; Constitutional safeguards; Judicious 
application; Need for order; Quest for justice.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2024 of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP No. 483 of 2023
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 49 and 50 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Raj Shekhar Rao, Dr. Abhishek 
Manu Singhvi, Dhruv Mehta, Shyam Divan, Shyam Mehta,  
PB Suresh, Sr. Advs., Divyanshu Rai, Naveen Hegde, Ajay 
Shankar Rao, Areeb Amanullah, Vishal Sharma, Ms. Taruna, 
Abhayankar Panth, Ms. Aashna Chawla, Aseem Chaturvedi, Vishnu 
Shriram, Arpit Kumar Singh, Keith Varghese, Ms. Phalguni Nigam,  
M/s. Khaitan & Co., M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Madhav 
Kanoria, Ms. Srideepa Bhattacharyya, Ms. Neha Shivhare,  
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 
179
Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. v. 
Farooq Ali Khan & Ors.
Sumit Attri, Sivaramakrishnan Ms, Shivam Singh, Ishwar Singh, 
Varad Kilor, Vinay N Kumar, Shaurya R. Rai, Gopal Singh,  
Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
1.	
Leave Granted. 
2.	
These appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution are against the 
judgment of the High Court of Karnataka exercising power of judicial 
review1 interdicting Corporate Insolvency Process culminating in the 
acceptance of a resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors in 
minutes of meeting dated 11.02.2020. In this batch of matters, there 
are three appeals, one by the successful resolution applicant METL, 
the other by the Bank comprising the Committee of Creditors, and 
the thi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.