# In the matter of Naresh Sundarlal Jain vs. Udaipur Entertainment World  Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

> HC judgment dated 2023-09-27. Citation: TCN-2023-HC-00032. Naresh Sundarlal Jain filed a writ petition (No. 11982 of 2023) in the High Court of Judicature at…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 27 Sept 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-HC-00032
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/naresh-sundarlal-jain-vs-udaipur-entertainment-world-pvt-ltd-ors-88e10c1d

## Summary

### Background

Naresh Sundarlal Jain filed a writ petition (No. 11982 of 2023) in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that vacated an attachment order passed by the adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The petitioner, an unsecured creditor, claimed that the NCLT order jeopardized his interests by pushing him to the bottom of the creditor list under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). He argued that he was not a party to the NCLT proceedings and was unaware of the order until recently.

## Facts

Naresh Sundarlal Jain, the petitioner, lent money to Udaipur Entertainment World Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent no. 1) for a project in Udaipur. An attachment order was issued, but later vacated by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Jain claimed he was unaware of the NCLT order and that his interests as an unsecured creditor were jeopardized under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Respondent no. 1 argued that Jain was aware of the NCLT order, as evidenced by an ex-director's attempt to appeal the order. The ex-director's appeal was dismissed by NCLAT due to excessive delay. Jain did not file an appeal before NCLAT within the limitation period. The properties of Respondent no. 1 are situated in Rajasthan, but the registered address of the company is in Mumbai. The

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal …

**Ratio:** The statutory remedy of appeal must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction,

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal before the

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted that the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal

…

**Application:** The court applied the ratio to the facts of the case, holding that the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Sunil B.…; Firdosh P.…
- **Appellants:** Naresh Sundarlal…
- **Respondents:** Udaipur Entertainm…

## Timeline

- **2023-07-14 — NCLAT Or…**: NCLAT dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the…
- **2023-09-27 — Order Da…**: Oral judgment delivered by the High…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/naresh-sundarlal-jain-vs-udaipur-entertainment-world-pvt-ltd-ors-88e10c1d