Gauhati High Court Stays CIRP After NCLT Failed To Consider Application Seeking Supporting Documents

The Gauhati High Court has stayed insolvency proceedings initiated by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Guwahati, following a challenge to the validity of the demand notice issued by an operational creditor.

The court observed that the tribunal ought to have considered an application seeking disclosure of supporting documents before admitting the insolvency petition.

Justice Soumitra Saikia passed the order on a writ petition filed by Mukesh Jalan, challenging the admission of a Section 9 insolvency petition filed by operational creditor Rain Tayo, proprietor of Lummar Enterprise. The writ petition also arrayed Amit Pareek, the interim resolution professional of Sadguru Engineers and Allied Services Private Limited, as a respondent.

The dispute arose from the alleged non-payment of ₹3,96,96,415 towards supplies of stone chips and stone dust made by Tayo.

Jalan challenged the proceedings, contending that the demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) had been issued by a power of attorney holder, Sonjib Gogoi, who was not authorised to issue it at the relevant time.

He pointed out that the notice was issued on July 15, 2025, whereas the notary affidavit purportedly conferring authority on Gogoi was executed subsequently. 

Jalan further contended that the NCLT admitted the insolvency petition without considering his application seeking disclosure of documents, including vouchers and bills supporting the operational creditor's claims. The application was rejected on October 28, 2026, the same day the Section 9 petition was admitted.

He also questioned the proceedings on the ground that the operational creditor's name had subsequently been changed, whereas the application before the NCLT was filed in his erstwhile name.

When the High Court asked about the availability of an appellate remedy before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Jalan argued that the existence of an alternative remedy would not completely bar the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction where statutory requirements under the IBC had allegedly not been followed.

He relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Parashtom Dass, reported in (2025), to contend that the availability of an alternative remedy was not an absolute bar to entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Considering the submissions, the High Court observed that the NCLT ought to have considered the application seeking production of documents before admitting the company petition and ordering the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

“Prima facie it appears to the court that the NCLT ought to have duly considered the IA prior to admitting the company petition and ordering the CIRP and appointment of the interim resolution professional,” Justice Saikia observed.

The court also took note of Jalan's contention that the procedure prescribed under the IBC, including the requirement of issuing a proper demand notice, had not been followed by the operational creditor.

However, it kept the question of maintainability of the writ petition open for consideration at the admission stage.

The High Court issued notice to the respondents, returnable in four weeks, and directed that the matter be listed for admission on December 11, 2026. It also directed that notice on the interim prayer be returnable on the same date.

The court stayed the proceedings initiated before the NCLT under the company petition, along with the orders dated October 28, 2026, passed in the company petition and the interlocutory application, until the next date of listing.

For Petitioner: Advocates Dr. Ashok Saraf, P.K Bora, S.J Saikia, N.N Dutta and P. Baruah

For Respondent: Advocate K Sarma (CGC), DY.S.G.I