JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C. to S.C. II appearing on behalf of respondent-state. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26.08.2017, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition passed by the Principal District Judge, Bokaro, in Title Appeal No. 33 of 2007, whereby the petition dated 04.08.2017 filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition dated 4.8.2017 was filed by the writ petitioner who are respondent no 7 in the said Title Appeal praying to stay the proceedings of the appeal till further orders which may be passed by National Company Law Tribunal Kolkata Bench in C.P. (I.B) No. 361/KB/2017 as moratorium has been declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 vide order dated 21.07.2017 in the matter of proceedings against the petitioner under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 5. The main ground of challenge as argued by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Appellate Court has committed jurisdictional error while passing the order dated 26.08.2017, as it has erroneously held that the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not an impediment for him for further hearing of the appeal. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the banker of the petitioner i.e. State Bank of India and its other subsidiaries have filed petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to the adjudicating Authority ) rules, 2016 before the National Company Law Tribunal in C.P. No. (IB) 361/KB/2017. This petition was filed before National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata and the said Tribunal vide its order dated 21.07.2017 admitted for initiating the corporate resolution process and declared a moratorium and public announcement as stated in Section 13 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. By the said order, moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 was declared and there was a clear provision regarding initiation or continuation of the pending suit or proceeding against the petitioner. By referring to Annexure-1 of the writ petition, the counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that one Mr. By the said order, moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 was declared and there was a clear provision regarding initiation or continuation of the pending suit or proceeding against the petitioner. By referring to Annexure-1 of the writ petition, the counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that one Mr. Dhaivat Anjaria has been appointed as Interim Resolution Professional under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 and moratorium under section 14 prohibited the following as per order dated 21.7.2017 :- “Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 prohibits the following (a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; (b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; (c) Any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its propriety including any action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002); (d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor (2) The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor as may be specified shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator. (4) The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of such order till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process. Provided that where at any time during the corporate insolvency resolution process period, if the Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of corporate debtor under section 33, the moratorium shall cease to have effect from the date of such approval or liquidation order, as the case may be.” Necessary public announcement as per section 15 of the IBC, 2016 may be made. Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the order was till the date of moratorium for the period of 180 days w.e.f. 21st July 2017, which before its expiry has been extended on 19th December 2017 for a further period of 90 days. 7. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the entire scheme of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 has been considered by Hon’ble the Supreme court in judgment reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1025 wherein it has been held that once an application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 is admitted, a moratorium in terms of section 14 has to be declared which has been done in the instant case and accordingly in terms of the moratorium the proceeding in the pending appeal before the lower appellate court was required to be stayed. It is submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the lower appellate court while passing the impugned order. 8. At this stage it would be relevant to refer to the order dated 09.03.2018. On that day upon perusal of the aforesaid Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme court this court observed that it has been held in para 11 and 23 of the said judgment that from the date of appointment of the interim resolution professional, the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor vests with interim resolution professional. The para 11 and 23 of the said judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme court are quoted hereinbelow for ready reference :- “11. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, we find substance in the plea taken by Shri Salve that the present appeal at the behest of the erstwhile directors of the appellant is not maintainable. Dr. Singhvi stated that this is a technical point and he could move an application to amend the cause tile stating that the erstwhile directors do not represent the company, but are filing the appeal as persons aggrieved by the impugned order, as their management right of the company has been taken away and as they are otherwise affected as shareholders of the company. According to us, once an insolvency professional is appointed to manage the company, the erstwhile directors who are no longer in management, obviously cannot maintain an appeal on behalf of the company. In the present case, the company is the sole appellant. According to us, once an insolvency professional is appointed to manage the company, the erstwhile directors who are no longer in management, obviously cannot maintain an appeal on behalf of the company. In the present case, the company is the sole appellant. This being the case, the present appeal is obviously not maintainable. However, we are not inclined to dismiss the appeal on this score alone. Having heard both the learned counsel at some length, and because this is the very first application that has been moved under the Code, we thought it necessary to deliver a detailed judgment so that all Courts and Tribunals may take notice of a paradigm shift in the law. Entrenched managements are no longer allowed to continue in management if they cannot pay their debts” 23. Under Section 17, from the date of appointment of the interim resolution professional, the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor vests with interim resolution professional. Section 17 (1) (a) reads as under: “Sec. 17.Managemnt of affairs of corporate debtor by interim resolution professional. (1) From the date of appointment of the interim resolution professional, (a) the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor shall vest in the interim resolution professional;” 9. Upon this the counsel for the petitioner had submitted on 9.3.2018 that the person filing the writ petition as well as the person swearing the affidavit in the writ petition were duly authorised by the Interim Resolution Professional appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal and a prayer was made seeking time to bring the same on record as this aspect of the matter was not being reflected from the vakalatnama as well as the affidavit filed in the case. Accordingly time was granted. 10. Pursuant to order dated 9.3.2018 an affidavit dated 12.3.2018 was filed bringing on record a certified copy of resolution dated 14.11.2017 (Annexure- 5) which reads as follows:- “RESOLVED THAT in supersession to all the earlier resolutions, any Director of the Company or the below mentioned Authorised Signatories of the Company 1. Mr. Sunil Katial Chief Executive Officer 2. Mr. Ashutosh Agarwal Authorised Signatory 3. Mr. Suresh Khandelwal Authorised Signatory 4. Mr. B. Srivatsa Authorised Signatory 5. Mr. Shri Harish Authorised Signatory 6. Mr. R.L. Gupta Authorised Signatory 7. Mr. Bibhas Saha Authorised Signatory 8. Mr. Purushottam Kumar Authorised Signatory 9. Mr. Manish Kumar Chaudhary Authorised Signatory 10. Mr. Mr. Sunil Katial Chief Executive Officer 2. Mr. Ashutosh Agarwal Authorised Signatory 3. Mr. Suresh Khandelwal Authorised Signatory 4. Mr. B. Srivatsa Authorised Signatory 5. Mr. Shri Harish Authorised Signatory 6. Mr. R.L. Gupta Authorised Signatory 7. Mr. Bibhas Saha Authorised Signatory 8. Mr. Purushottam Kumar Authorised Signatory 9. Mr. Manish Kumar Chaudhary Authorised Signatory 10. Mr. Sanjoy Paul Authorised Signatory 11. Mr. Ramesh Raina Authorised Signatory 12. Mr. Anuj Kumar Jaiswal Authorised Signatory 13. Mr. Binaya Kumar Dash Authorised Signatory Subject to specific approval by the Resolution Professional, be and hereby severally authorized to represent on behalf of the Company in any kind of legal matters, before any Court of law, Tribunal, Local Authority, any Revenue Authority, Chamber of Commerce, SEBI ,ROC, MCA, any quasi-judicial authority, Adjudicating officer, Central and/or State Government or any other body/authority and also to file applications, Petitions and defend the Company and to appoint Advocate(s) and/or Counsels and to sign Vakalatnama, Affidavits and/or any other documents as may be required from time to time and also to take such other steps as may be needed and required for the said purpose. RESOLVED FURTHER THAT a certified copy of the resolution signed by the Company Secretary of the Company, be provided to anyone concerned or interested in the aforesaid matter.” 11. Another document as contained in annexure 6 was filed along with the supplementary affidavit issued by the Insolvency Professional certifying that the board of directors of the petitioner company is suspended with effect from 21.07.2017 and the Insolvency Professional had authorised Sri. Manoj Mishra , Assistant Manager (legal) of the petitioner company to inform the appellate authority in Title Appeal no 33 of 2007 about the aforesaid order dated 21.07.2017 and to swear affidavit challenging the order of the Appellate Authority dated 26.08.2017 before the Hon’ble High court in WPC NO 5157 of 2017. The relevant portion of the Annexure-6 is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- “Pursuant to the first CoC Meeting dated August 21, 2017, the CoC by a requisite vote, confirmed my appointment as the Resolution Professional (‘RP’) The same was officially communicated to the Hon’ble Tribunal on September 12, 2017. The relevant portion of the Annexure-6 is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- “Pursuant to the first CoC Meeting dated August 21, 2017, the CoC by a requisite vote, confirmed my appointment as the Resolution Professional (‘RP’) The same was officially communicated to the Hon’ble Tribunal on September 12, 2017. In terms of Section 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, upon appointment of the interim resolution professional, the powers of the board of directors of the company which is under CIR process stands suspended and such powers is exercised by the Interim resolution professional appointed for the corporate debtor (in this case, the Company). Hence, the board of directors of the Company is suspended with effect from commencement of CIR Process i.e. July 21, 2017 and accordingly, the powers of the Board are being exercised by the RP, which is to continue till the completion of the CIR Process. In order to continue the day to day operation of the Company, the RP had authorised of Shri Manoj Mishra, Assistant Manager (Legal) of Electrosteel Steels Limited to; (a) Inform the Ld. Appellate Authority in T.A. No. 33/07 of the Order of NCLT dated 21.07.2017; and (b) to swear the affidavit challenging the Order of the Appellate Authority dated 26.08.2017 before the Hon’ble High Court in WP. (C) No. 5175/2017. Also, Shri Sunil Katial, Chief Executive Officer was authorised to sign the Vakalatnama in favour of Shri Indrajit Sinha, Advocate for filing of the Writ Petition before Jharkhand High Court in W.P. (C) No. 5175/2017 challenging the Order of the Ld. Appellate Court dated 26.08.2017 in Title Appeal No. 33/07 pending before the Principal District Court, Bokaro. The authorisations with regard to representing the Company before any court of law were ratified in the meeting of RP, key managerial personnel of the Company held on November 14, 2017 in lieu of the board 14th Board Meeting of the Company.” 12. However no document has been produced authorising Sri. Manoj Mishra to file petition before the court below on 4.8.2017 or authorising him to file affidavit in this court for filing writ petition on 31.8.2017 which was subsequently numbered as WPC NO 5157 of 2017. Further there is no document authorising Sri Sunil Kaital, Chief Executive officer of the petitioner company authorising execution of vakalatnama and filing of writ petition on 30.8.2017. Further there is no document authorising Sri Sunil Kaital, Chief Executive officer of the petitioner company authorising execution of vakalatnama and filing of writ petition on 30.8.2017. The petitioner ought to have produced the authorisation letter in favour of Sri. Manoj Mishra Assistant Manager (legal) and Sri Sunil Kaital, Chief Executive officer of the company to file petition on 04.08.2017 before the lower appellate court and 31.8.17 before this court, but the same having not been produced, the plea of the petitioner that Sri. Manoj Mishra Assistant Manager (legal) and Sri Sunil Kaital, Chief Executive officer of the company were duly authorised on the day they had filed petition/affidavit/vakalatnama cannot be accepted. 13. It appears from annexure 5 filed along with the supplementary affidavit dated 12.03.2018 that Sri Sunil Kaital, Chief Executive officer and Sri. Manoj Mishra Assistant Manager (legal) of the petitioner company were authorised to represent the company only vide resolution dated 14.11.2017 that too subject to specific approval by the Insolvency resolution Professional. 14. Considering this fact, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the writ petitioner and this writ petition is dismissed on account of the fact that the applications which was filed before the learned lower court dated 04.08.2017 by Manoj Mishra Assistant Manager (legal) was not maintainable as he was not authorised by the Insolvency resolution Professional, to file any petition on behalf of the company. Even at the time, when this writ petition was filed there was no authorization in favour of Mr. Manoj Mishra Assistant Manager (legal) or in favour of Sri Sunil Kaital , Chief Executive officer of the company to file writ petition or affidavit before this Court. This is so in view of the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme court reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1025 whose relevant portions have already been quoted above. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 16. However, this order will not be a bar for the Interim Resolution Professional or Resolution Professional to be appointed under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to get appropriate petition filed through any authorised person in accordance with law before the court below. 17. A copy of this order be also communicated to National Company Law Tribunal Kolkata Bench who had passed the order dated 21.07.2017 in C.P. (I.B) No. 361/KB/2017.