ORDER : 1. Mr. Kuloor Arvind Kamath Senior Advocate and Ms. Veena J.Kamath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Dhyan Chinnappa Senior Advocate for R1, R2 & R4. Mr. H.N. Vasudev, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5. Mr. Gigi Joseph, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally. 3. In this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bangalore. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the Tribunal to provide opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in the proceeding pending before it in a petition filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short). 4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition briefly stated are that petitioner is a Corporation based in New Jersey in the United States of America. The petitioner had filed a suit for infringement of the patent against respondent No. 1, which was exclusively assigned to the petitioner. The Court in United States passed a default judgment and held that respondent No. 1 is liable to pay to the petitioner a sum of USD 1,234,962.00 in damages, USD 838,545.00 in attorneys’ fees USD 12,469.36 in expenses USD 147,282.54 in pre-judgment interest. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 hatched a plan to voluntarily wind itself up with a view to defeat the lawful rights of the creditors including the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 filed a petition under Section 10 of the Code before the National Company Law Tribunal, Bangalore. By an order dated 04.08.2017, the Tribunal directed issuance of notice to financial creditors of respondent No. 1. Thereafter, by an order dated 22.09.2017, the Tribunal has admitted the petition and has declared a moratorium, which prohibits the institution for continuation of the suits against respondent No. 1. By an order dated 26.09.2017, the Tribunal has appointed respondent No. 3 as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The respondent No. 3 published a public announcement on 26.09.2017 itself inviting claims from creditors against respondent No. 1. By an order dated 26.09.2017, the Tribunal has appointed respondent No. 3 as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The respondent No. 3 published a public announcement on 26.09.2017 itself inviting claims from creditors against respondent No. 1. It is the case of the petitioner that he learnt of the aforesaid proceeding on 06.10.2017 and sent notices dated 14.10.2017 and 23.10.2017 requesting the respondent No. 3 to supply the documents. However, the aforesaid documents were not supplied. In the aforesaid factual background, petitioner has approached this Court seeking the reliefs as stated supra. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 2 who was already disqualified as a Director with effect from 01.11.2016 yet a resolution was passed on 20.07.2017 authorizing the respondent No. 2 to file a petition even when he was not even a Director in the Company. It is further submitted that petitioner has a right to file the suit against respondent No. 1-Company, which has been taken away by the impugned order as on account of declaration of moratorium, the petitioner is not in a position to institute the suit against respondent No. 1- Company. It is also submitted that respondent No. 2 neither approached the Tribunal nor this Court with clean hands and the petitioner ought to have been heard before an order of admission of the petition filed under Section 10 of the Code was passed. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Unigreen Global Private Limited vs. Punjab National Bank, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 81 of 2017, Innoventive Industries Limited vs. ICICI Bank and Another, (2018) 1 SCC 407 , Marine Geotechnics LLC vs. Coastal Marine Construction & Engineering Ltd. (2014) SCC Online Bom. 309, PSL Limited vs. PSL Limited, 2018 SCC Online Bom. 36 and B.K. Educational Services Private Limited vs. Parag Gupta and Associates, 2018 SCC Online SC 1921. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not challenged vires of the Code and has no claim as on today against respondent No. 1- Company. It is further submitted that petitioner is not even an operational creditor and his right, if any, against the respondent No. 1 is inchoate. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not challenged vires of the Code and has no claim as on today against respondent No. 1- Company. It is further submitted that petitioner is not even an operational creditor and his right, if any, against the respondent No. 1 is inchoate. It is further submitted that on account of interim order passed by the Court no order can be passed on the resolution plan and in case an order is passed on the resolution plan, the moratorium period would come to an end and thereafter the petitioner is at liberty to institute a suit against the respondent No. 1. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no locus and has an alternative remedy to challenge the aforesaid order before the National Company Law Tribunal. It is also submitted that the petition has been filed by the Company and on the strength of the board resolution; the petition has been filed by the respondent No. 2 on behalf of respondent No. 1. It is also submitted that the aforesaid defect, if any, can be subsequently rectified. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has relied on decision of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 660 and Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Union of India and Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 99/2018. 7. I have considered the submissions on both sides. A pure question of law arises for consideration in this writ petition on admitted facts namely, whether the petitioner is required to be heard before an order under Section 10 of the Code is passed by National Company Law Tribunal. The object of the Code is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximization of value of assets of such persons to promote entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balance the interests of all the stakeholders including alteration in the priority of payment of government dues and to establish an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fund and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. One of the important objectives of the Code is to bring insolvency law in India under a single statute with an object of speeding up of insolvency process. One of the important objectives of the Code is to bring insolvency law in India under a single statute with an object of speeding up of insolvency process. The Code provides for designating National Company Law Tribunal and Debt Recovery Tribunal as adjudicating authorities for corporate persons and firms and individuals respectively. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant provisions of the Code, which are referred to hereinafter for the facility of reference. Section 3(8), defines the expression ‘corporate debtor’ whereas, Section 5(5), defines the expression ‘corporate applicant’ which read as under: 3(8) “Corporate debtor” means a corporate person who owes a debt to any person. 5(5) “Corporate applicant” means: (a) corporate debtor. (b) a member of partner of the corporate debtor who is authorized to make an application for the corporate insolvency resolution process under the constitutional document of the corporate debtor. (c) an individual who is in charge of managing the operations and resources of the corporate debtor. (d) a person who has the control and supervision over the financial affairs of the corporate debtor. Section 10 of the Code deals with initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by corporate applicant which reads as under: “10. (1) Where a corporate debtor has committed a default, a corporate applicant thereof may file an application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process with the Adjudicating Authority. (2) The application under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form, containing such particulars and in such manner and accompanied with such fee as may be prescribed. (3) The corporate applicant shall, along with the application furnish the information relating to: (a) its books of account and such other documents relating to such period as may be specified. (b) the resolution professional proposed to be appointed as an interim resolution professional. (4) The Adjudicating Authority shall, within a period of fourteen days of the receipt of the application, by an order: (a) admit the application, if it is complete. (b) reject the application, if it is incomplete. Provided that Adjudicating Authority shall, before rejecting an application, give a notice to the applicant to rectify the defects in his application within seven days from the date of receipt of such notice from the Adjudicating Authority. (5) The corporate insolvency resolution process shall commence from the date of admission of the application under sub-section (4) of this section.” 8. Provided that Adjudicating Authority shall, before rejecting an application, give a notice to the applicant to rectify the defects in his application within seven days from the date of receipt of such notice from the Adjudicating Authority. (5) The corporate insolvency resolution process shall commence from the date of admission of the application under sub-section (4) of this section.” 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Innovative Industries Limited supra has held that under Sections 7 & 10 of the Code two factors are common i.e. the debt is due and there is a default. It has further been held that the moment the adjudicating authority is satisfied that a default has occurred, the application has to be admitted unless it is incomplete in which case it may give notice to the applicant to rectify the defect within 7 days from the receipt of the notice from the adjudicating authority. In an application under Section 10 of the Code, the financial creditor or operational creditor may dispute that there is no default or the debt is not due or not payable in law or in fact. They may also oppose admission on the ground that corporate applicant is not eligible to make application in view of the ineligible. The adjudicating authority on hearing the parties and on perusal of the record, if satisfied that there is a debt and default has occurred and the corporate applicant is ineligible under Section 11 the adjudicating authority has no option but to admit the application unless it is incomplete, in which case the corporate applicant is to be granted time to rectify the defects. 9. The petitioner who has an inchoate right contends that he has right to be heard before an order under Section 10 of the Code is passed. It is well settled in law that unless a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of principles of natural justice, generally the requirement of compliance of principles of natural justice is to be read into the provisions of the statute particularly when the order has adverse civil consequences. It is well settled in law that unless a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of principles of natural justice, generally the requirement of compliance of principles of natural justice is to be read into the provisions of the statute particularly when the order has adverse civil consequences. It is equally well settled that the question whether the principles of natural justice has to be applied or not is to be considered bearing in mind the express language and the basic scheme of the provision conferring the power, the nature of power conferred and the purpose for which the power is conferred and the final effect of the exercise of that power. It is only upon consideration of these matters that the question of principles of natural justice can be properly determined. Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association vs. Designated Authority, (2011) 2 SCC 258 , Union of India vs. Kumho Petrochemicals Company Ltd. and Another, (2017) 8 SCC 307 . 10. In the instant case, on plain reading of Section 10 of the Code, it is evident that it does not exclude principles of natural justice. However, the aforesaid opportunity has to be afforded to financial creditor or operational creditor. The petitioner is neither a financial creditor nor an operational creditor. The petitioner at this point of time has a claim against the respondent No. 1-Company, which is inchoate. The petitioner’s right to file the suit on account of declaration of moratorium has been temporarily suspended. Thus, the petitioner has not been deprived of his remedy. As and when an order on the resolution plan is passed, the moratorium period comes to an end and the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a suit against the respondent No. 1-Company. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim an opportunity of hearing in a proceeding under Section 10 of the Code, as the statute does not confer any right on him to be heard and the right of the petitioner in the instant case is protected, as on expiry of the period of moratorium, he can file a suit against the respondent No. 1-Company. 11. In view of preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. However, the petitioner may take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law after the moratorium period is over. 12. 11. In view of preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. However, the petitioner may take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law after the moratorium period is over. 12. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.