ORDER : This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein order dated 27.09.2016 as under annexure-3 by which the claim of the petitioner for payment of the contractual dues has been kept on hold till the settlement of the claim of liabilities between Jharkhand Bijli Vitaran Nigam Limited in short “J.B.V.N.L.” and M/s. IVRCL Ltd., Hyderabad, the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in this writ petition is that the petitioner company has participated in the bid on 10.11.2006 for both Package A-B and declared successful, thereafter, erstwhile, Jharkhand State Electricity Board in short “J.S.E.B.” has issued letters of award, purchase order, work order, has entered into an agreement on 27.05.2008, in pursuance thereto, the petitioner has successfully constructed, charged and commissioned the transmission lines of 220 KV D/C Lohardaga to Latehar (Package-A) and 220 KV D/C Latehar to Daltonganj (Package-B) on 30.09.2013 and 23.11.2013 respectively within the fourth time extension granted to respondent no.1, accordingly, necessary commissioning and charging certificate were issued by J.S.EB. vide letter no.240/Lohardaga dated 20.12.2013 (Package-A) and letter no.48/Daltonganj dated 05.12.2013, respectively. 3. The petitioner thereafter, has submitted its bill but the amount has not been disbursed on the alleged ground that some work which was assigned to the petitioner by the J.B.V.N.L. has been left out in mid-way in spite of time having repeatedly been granted, and therefore, the agreement has been rescinded and has been blacklisted, due to abandonment of work in mid-way, J.B.V.N.L. has suffered huge financial loss to the tune of Rs.795.55 crores, ultimately such losses burdened to J.U.V.N.L. and hence the final quantity variation proposal for work in question have been kept on hold till settlement of liability in between J.U.V.N.L. and M/s. IVRCL Ltd., Hyderabad, the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has agitated the issue questioning the action of the respondents that even accepting that there is default in completion of the work allotted to the J.U.V.N.L. but that has got no nexus with the present work in view of the fact that the present work is of Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, in short “J.U.S.N.L.” and as such, even if there is any default with the other establishment, the same cannot come in the way for disbursement of the amount after completion of the work in question. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Pratysuh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has advanced his argument by referring the judgments, wherein in a claim for a sum which is due and payable i.e., presently recoverable and may be recovered by the mode therein provided but it does not create a lien on other sums due to the contractor or given to the purchaser, the right to retain such sums until the claim against the contractor is satisfied. 6. While on the other, Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited has raised the issue of maintainability of the writ petition on behalf of the present petitioner, in view of the fact that the State Bank of India, in the capacity of secured creditor, has invoked the jurisdiction of National Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad, under Section 17 of the I.B.C., 2016 to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in the matter of IVRCL Ltd. under I.B.C., 2016 and in pursuance thereto an order of moratorium under Section 14 (1) of the I.B.C. in respect of 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 I respect of its property including any action under the Securitization 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 Corporate Debtor. (e) This order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of communication of this order till completion of CIRP or till passing an order for liquidation of Corporate Debtor under Section 33, whichever is earlier. (d) The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of Corporate Debtor. (e) This order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of communication of this order till completion of CIRP or till passing an order for liquidation of Corporate Debtor under Section 33, whichever is earlier. (f) Direct to cause a public announcement of the initiation of CIRP immediately as prescribed under Section 15(1) and (2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, on www.ibbi.gov.in (designated website of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, circulated vide IIBI/IP/PUBLIC ANN/221 dated 01.02.2017) and email to public.ann@ibbi.gov.in in addition to other accepted modes of publication immediately and call for submission of claims as per Section 15 of IBC read with Regulation 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The Company is also directed to publish the same in its official website. (g) The IRP is directed to follow all extant code of IBC and all the Rules and Regulations framed by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. Afford full opportunity to all concerned parties to the issue by duly following principles of Natural Justice; (h) Both the Petitioner and Respondent are directed to extend full cooperation to the IRP to discharge his statutory functions; (i) Direct the personnel of IVRCL Limited, its promoters or any other person associated with the management of IVRCL Limited, to assist and co-operate with Interim Resolution Professional to provide access to documents and records and management of the affairs of the Company.” 7. Therefore, since the IRP has been appointed to follow all extant code of I.B.C. and all the Rules and Regulations framed by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 and directed to afford full opportunity to all concerned parties to the issue duly following principles of natural justice, therefore, submission has been made that the petitioner is having no locus to pursue the writ petition without seeking authorization from the duly appointed IRP as per the order dated 23.02.2018 passed in CP(IB)No.294/7/HDB/2017 and secondly the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the provision of the Arbitration Clause under the condition of agreement under Condition No.35(A) which provides that any dispute arising in between the contractor and the purchaser, the dispute will be settled as per the Arbitration Act (latest Indian Arbitration Act), therefore, the petitioner may approach by invoking under the provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their rival submissions, the admitted fact in this case is that the agreement has been entered into in between the petitioner and the Jharkhand State Electricity Board on 27th day of May, 2008. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their rival submissions, the admitted fact in this case is that the agreement has been entered into in between the petitioner and the Jharkhand State Electricity Board on 27th day of May, 2008. The State of Jharkhand has come out with a notification on 06.01.2014 in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 131, 133 and the other applicable provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, whereby and whereunder, a new Scheme in the name of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2013 has been notified by which the Jharkhand State Electricity Board has been bifurcated as Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited which means the distribution company through which the Distribution Undertakings of the Board are to be transferred in accordance with this Scheme, Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. means the generating Company to which the Generating Undertakings of the Board are to be transferred in accordance with this Scheme, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Ltd. means the transmission Company to which the Transmission Undertakings of the Board are to be transferred in accordance with this Scheme, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. means the Company that will own all shares of newly incorporated reorganized three companies i.e., Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Ltd. and Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. The definition of transferee has been provided which means Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Ltd. and Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., as the case may be. Under the transfer of assets, liabilities etc. to the State, which has been provided as under Clause nos.4.1 and 4.2 of the notification dated 06.01.2014 which is being quoted hereinbelow:- “4.1. On and from the effective date, the assets and all interests, rights and liabilities of the Board as specified in such of the Schedules ‘A’ and ‘E’, as per the decision of the State Government, shall stand transferred to and vest in the State Government for the purposes of further transfers under this Scheme without any further act to thing to be done by the State Government or Board or nay person, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the Act and this Scheme. 4.2. 4.2. The assets and liabilities specified in Schedule-‘E’ shall not form part of the assets and liabilities to be transferred to the proposed successor companies as classified in Schedules-‘A’ to ‘D’ but shall form part of residuary assets and liabilities to be retained by the State Government. However, outstanding State Govt. Loans and interest thereon receivable from board will continue to be shown as recoverable from board in the books of State Govt., pending final adjustment between board and State Govt.” Transfer of Undertaking by the State as provided under Clause No.5 which reads as hereunder:- “5.1 The functions, business and Undertakings forming part of Transmission Undertakings as set out in Schedule ‘A’ hereto shall stand transferred to and vest in Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Ltd. on and from the effective date, without any further act or thing to be done by the State Government or Board or any person, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the Act and this Scheme. 5.2 The functions, business and Undertakings forming part of Generation Undertakings as set out in Schedule ‘B’ shall stand transferred to and vest in Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. on and from the effective date, without any further act or thing to be done by the State Government or Board or any person, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the Act and this Scheme. 5.3 The functions, business and Undertakings forming part of Distribution Undertakings as set out in Schedule ‘C’ shall stand transferred to and vest in Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. on and from the effective date, without any further act or thing to be done by the State Government or Board or any person, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the Act and this Scheme. 5.4 The functions, business and Undertakings forming part of Holding Undertakings as set out in Schedule ‘D’ shall stand transferred to and vest in Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. on and from the effective date, without any further act or thing to be done by the State Government or Board or any person, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the Act and this Scheme. 5.5 On such transfer and vesting of the functions, business and Undertakings in terms of sub-clauses 5.1 and 5.4 above and except as otherwise provided, the respective Transferee, shall be responsible for all functions, contracts, rights, deeds, schemes, bonds, agreements, proceedings and other instruments of whatever nature relating to the respective Undertakings transferred to it to which the Board was a party subsisting or having effect on the date of the transfer, and the same shall remain in force and effect against or in favour of the respective Transferee and may be enforced effectively as if the respective Transferee had been a party thereto instead of the Board. 5.6 As consideration for the transfer and vesting of the Undertakings as specified in this Scheme, the relevant Transferee shall have the financials and opening balance sheet and shall issue shares and/or/other instruments as the State Government may notify by order (as specified in Part II of Schedule A to D respectively). 5.7 The State Government may, by an order to be issued for the purpose, amend, vary, modify, add, delete or otherwise change the terms and conditions specified in the Schedules at any time during the provisional period mentioned in Clause 9 of this Scheme. 5.8 The transfer value of the Assets & Liabilities forming part of the Schedules A, B, C & D of the respective Transferee have been taken at Book Values.” 9. Admittedly, the agreement dated 27.05.2008 has been entered into in between the J.S.E.B. and by the petitioner for transmission and therefore, in view of the transfer clause, the said work will stand transferred under Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Ltd. and hence the agreement executed by the erstwhile J.S.E.B. will be treated to be an agreement entered into in between the petitioner and the Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Ltd. and therefore, the terms and conditions of the said agreement is binding upon the petitioner. 10. So far as the contention of the petitioner that in absence of any authorization by the IRP, the writ petition may not be entertained, this Court is in agreement with the said submission in view of the specific provision as contained under Section 17 of the I.B.C., 2016 which reads as hereunder:- “17. 10. So far as the contention of the petitioner that in absence of any authorization by the IRP, the writ petition may not be entertained, this Court is in agreement with the said submission in view of the specific provision as contained under Section 17 of the I.B.C., 2016 which reads as hereunder:- “17. Management 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; (2) The interim resolution professional vested with the management of the corporate debtor shall- (a) act and execute in the name and on behalf of the corporate debtor all deeds, receipts, and other documents, if any; (b) take such actions, in the manner and subject to such restrictions, as may be specified by the Board; (c) have the authority to access the electronic records of corporate debtor from information utility having financial information of the corporate debtor; (d) have the authority to access the books of account, records and other relevant documents of corporate debtor available with Government authorities, statutory auditors, accountants and such other persons as may be specified.” (b) The powers of the board of directors or the partners of the corporate debtor, as the case may be, shall stand suspended and be exercised by the interim resolution professional; (c) The officers and managers of the corporate debtor shall report to the interim resolution professional and provide access to such documents and records of the corporate debtor as may be required by the interim resolution professional; (d) The financial institutions maintaining accounts of the corporate debtor shall act on the instructions of the interim resolution professional in relation to such accounts and furnish all information relating to the corporate debtor available with them to the interim resolution professional. Thus, after appointment of IRP all the decision pertaining to the petitioner unit is to be taken by IRP. 11. Thus, after appointment of IRP all the decision pertaining to the petitioner unit is to be taken by IRP. 11. It also needs to refer that it is a money claim depending upon non-statutory contract, wherein Arbitration Clause is there under Condition No.35(A) and the dispute raised by the petitioner is being disputed, therefore, it will not be just and proper to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court in passing an order of settling money claim arising out of non-statutory contract, therefore, this Court is not inclined to pass a positive direction in favour of the petitioner, hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. 12. However, it needs to refer herein, by taking into consideration the provision of Section 17 of the I.B.C., 2016 and appointment of IRP, it is open for the petitioner to bring this fact into the notice of the Interim Resolution Professional, for taking appropriate decision for invoking the Arbitration Clause for settling the dispute. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.