ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Article-226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the order dated 05-02-2020 passed in I.A. No.658 of 2019 in C.P. (I.B.) No.594/9/NCLT/AHM/2018. The challenge is on the basis of non-following of principles of natural justice and not affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The impugned order is for reserving the aforementioned proceedings for order. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Tribunal had reserved the order proceedings for order by the impugned order dated 05-02-2020 and immediately on 07-02-2020, the order was pronounced. The petition is filed, at that time, the petitioner was not having a copy of the order passed on 07-02-2020. Therefore, prayer is made that the Tribunal should consider the claim of the petitioner as per Section-5(8)(F) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. An application of the petitioner primarily is to IRP to recognize the petitioner as financial creditor. It is submitted that an application was filed. However, no decision was taken by the IRP and therefore, under Section-60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the application was preferred before the NCLT, Ahmedabad. In the said application, the order was passed on 22-10-2019 for Resolution Professional to see the claim of the applicant and after collating the information submitted the same before the COC. It is therefore, NCLT had recognized the right of the petitioner and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have heard the petitioner on merits. Thereafter, reserving the proceedings for order. It is submitted that on 05-02-2020, IRP had furnished the list consisting of name of the financial creditors / Operational creditors / Employee (Form-F), as on 01-02-2020, where the name of the petitioner was at Sr. No.5. Against his name, claim amount was reflected at Annexure-S. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner immediately passed the pursis on the same day, arguing the Tribunal to disregard such document (Annexure-S) and filed the same along with the Affidavit to furnish an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to deal with such Affidavit and accompanying documents. Despite this, the matter was proceeded to be reserved for orders and on 07-02-2020, pronouncement was made. 3. Despite this, the matter was proceeded to be reserved for orders and on 07-02-2020, pronouncement was made. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has heard procedural and has failed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, order reserving is required to be quashed and set aside and the Tribunal to direct to hear the petitioner. In support of her arguments, for invoking Article-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, despite alternative remedy provided under the Code, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in case of Kamal K. Singh V/s. Union of India and others in Writ Petition No.3250 of 2019 dated 29th November, 2019 to contend that where the principles of natural justice are in breach, affecting the right of the petitioner, then Article-226 can be invoked. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Rojer Mathew v/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. and others reported in 2019 (369) ELT 3 (S.C.) to contend that where the Tribunal is not situated within the State and is not like in the present case, where the Appellate Tribunal is in Delhi, then jurisdictional High Court under Article-226, can redressed the grievance. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. v/s. State of Karnataka and ors. reported in 2019 (17) SCALE 37 to contend that despite the availability of statutory alternative remedy of Appeal to NCLT under Article-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, writ can be issued by the High Court. 4. The petitioner also relied upon the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.10629 of 2019 in case of Dilip Sinh Madansinh Sisodiya V/s. Adjudicating Officer, where according to the petitioner, the right of the creditors is to be frustrated, in that case, an opportunity of hearing is necessary and such issues are required to be decided by the NCLT. 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and having perused the documents on record, today, when the matter is argued, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed on record the decision taken by the NCLT in the proceedings in question. The decision is produced on record. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner is also challenging the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 07-02-2020. The decision is produced on record. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner is also challenging the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 07-02-2020. Perusal of the order indicate that application of the petitioner claiming to be financial creditor has been dealt with and finding is given, which is in Para-13. 6. From the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner had filed an application under Section-60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on 16-10-2019. On 20-10-2019, it was listed for first time and the reliefs sought, which reads as under: “A. To admit the present application under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016; B. To direct the Respondent herein to adjudicate the claim of the applicant as per the provisions of sub-section 8(f) of the section 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. C. To direct the Respondent to ratify the list of creditors of the company and also to declare the applicant to be a member of the Committee of Creditors constituted for the purpose of initiation of CIRP proceedings against the Corporate Debtor.” 7. Statutory period under the Code was to end in February, 2020. On 20-10-2019, the order is recorded by the NCLT about the RP requesting for time and directed by the NCLT to see the claim of the applicant and after collating the information submitted before the COC. On 20-11-2019, the Lawyer for the RP had submitted that there is duplication of the claim and therefore, the claim was yet to be decided, to which Lawyer for the petitioner had denied any duplication and RP was directed to submit the photocopy of the claim. The matter thereafter was listed on 02-12-2019, wherein the RP was to produce photocopies of all the claims submitted by the applicant in different form. Therefore, Notice was issued by the RP as to why he has failed to produce the photocopies of the applicant's claim. The Tribunal proceeded to direct the RP not to proceed further by holding meeting of COC without deciding this application. 8. The Resolution Professional had filed Affidavit in reply to the application of the respondent. Therefore, Notice was issued by the RP as to why he has failed to produce the photocopies of the applicant's claim. The Tribunal proceeded to direct the RP not to proceed further by holding meeting of COC without deciding this application. 8. The Resolution Professional had filed Affidavit in reply to the application of the respondent. Wherein it is submitted that the Applicant has not produced the copy of the Agreement entered with the Corporate Debtor in pursuance of which the earnest money been paid for the purpose of purchase of land of Corporate Debtor and therefore without perusal of the said Agreement it can not be made out as to whether the nature of the transaction falls within the ambit of subsection 8(f) of Section 5 of the IB Code 2016 and whether it can be regarded as financial transaction and whether the said Agreement can be regarded as financial. Contract. It is submitted that without perusal of the said Agreement it can not be ascertained that the amount paid by the Applicant was to be repayable alongwith interest over a period of time and whether the Applicant has disbursed the money against the consideration for the time value of money which is required to be satisfied in pursuance of the opening words of the definition clause sub-section (8) of Section 5 of the IB Code 2016. 9. It is stated in the Affidavit that “considering the aforesaid facts, the Respondent has not considered the claim of the applicant as financial debt and advised the applicant to provide the substantial evidence in support of its claim to enable him to decide further and being aggrieved the Applicant has preferred to file the present application before this Hon’ble Tribunal. However, in view of the foregoing submissions, considering the settled law it is submitted that the Applicant can not be considered as Financial Creditor and the present application moved by the Applicant is not tenable and the reliefs sought therein can not be granted and therefore it deserves to be. dismissed with cost. It is further submitted that the relief sought by the applicant to adjudicate the claim of the applicant and ratify the list of creditors of the corporate debtor and declare the applicant to be member of the Committee at Creditors constituted for the purpose of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor company can not be granted. It is further submitted that the relief sought by the applicant to adjudicate the claim of the applicant and ratify the list of creditors of the corporate debtor and declare the applicant to be member of the Committee at Creditors constituted for the purpose of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor company can not be granted. That the Respondent has rejected the claim of the Applicant in Form C to consider as Financial Creditor and this tribunal may pass appropriate order in this regard and the Respondent declares that he would obey the order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal to consider the claim of the Applicant in the appropriate category as may be directed.” 10. Pursuant to the Affidavit being filed, NCLT vacated the interim order and permitted the meeting of COC. In the proceedings, orders were recorded on 01-01-2020, wherein some reasons were recorded and the matter was thereafter placed on 28-01-2020. Thereafter on 03-02-2020. Lastly, on 05-02-2020, when list of creditors allegedly placed on record, the Court finds that the proceedings before the NCLT have taken place chronologically and each time, orders have been passed. The impugned order of 05-02-2020 reads as under: “ORDER The parties are represented through learned counsels. Heard both the parties. The order is reserved.” 11. It is found that thereafter, application was decided wherein findings recorded by the NCLT in Para-4, Para-12 and Para-13, which reads as under: “4. The Applicant claiming himself to be the Financial Creditor has claimed to have paid an amount to the Corporate Debtor against the purchase of the land of the Corporate Debtor as earnest money. On perusal of the record, it is found that there is no agreement, as such, with regard to the sale and purchase between the Corporate Debtor and Applicant. In support of the contention, the Applicant has annexed E-receipt of transfer of funds as well as few counter foil showing transfer of the amount in the account of Corporate Debtor viz. Digjam Ltd. Apart from these documents, no other documents is/ are annexed, where from it can be deduce, that the amounts are paid against the agreement for the sale and purchase of land of Corporate Debtor. 12. Digjam Ltd. Apart from these documents, no other documents is/ are annexed, where from it can be deduce, that the amounts are paid against the agreement for the sale and purchase of land of Corporate Debtor. 12. Not only this, there is also shadow of doubt on Annexure-B i.e. letter dated 14.09.2018 of the applicant upon which total claim is based as the claimant failed to produce proof of dispatch, claiming that applicant has paid the amount against the land of the Corporate Debtor as earnest money, the claim cannot be accepted in absence of any acceptance from the side of Corporate Debtor, so as to term it as valid contract. It may be presumed to be a manufactured document as the applicant has failed to show his bonafide. Under such circumstances, his claim as other stake holders is / are also clouded and needs thorough verification by RP. 13. The Applicant in the application pleaded that the amount is paid as earnest money. Basically, earnest money serves two purposes: it remains as security or earnest for performance of the contract of sale but it becomes part of payment of the purchase money immediately on fulfillment of the contract, which is found absent in this case because of want of documents, such as, Contract Agreement for sale and purchase. Admittedly, there is no contract between the applicant and Corporate Debtor. In other words, earnest money is, more or less, a pledge for due performance of contract by the buyer. It indicates a solemn promise that the buyer will not back out from the contract. Rather, it is a guarantee on the part of the offeror/ buyer for the fulfillment of the contract. Normally, seller retains some amount, so as to meet the monetary damages he may suffer under the contract but the Applicant has totally failed to produce and / or substantiate by way of any document(s) that these are the earnest money and / or advance amount paid against the land of the Corporate Debtor and/ or on which account the said amount is remitted, in absence of any evidence corroborating that the alleged letter dated 14.09.2018 is genuinely issued and being received by the Corporate Debtor. The action of the applicant is unilateral in absence of any cogent evidence.” 12. Apparently, this order is yet to be challenged. The action of the applicant is unilateral in absence of any cogent evidence.” 12. Apparently, this order is yet to be challenged. This order is after the impugned order and not the subject matter of challenge before this Court. The Court is of the view that the order of 05-02-2020 was only for reserving the proceedings for orders. The petition was filed by the petitioner against the procedural error on the part of the Tribunal in not granting an opportunity of hearing. Now, the order has been passed in the proceedings, claim of the petitioner is decided. At this stage, where the petitioner has to invoke the provision of Appeal, as provided under Section-61 of the IBC, the grounds that are raised by the petitioner with regard to the lack of opportunity of hearing is also the ground that can be agitated in the Appeal. Section-61 provides for Appeal for any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The decision to consider the petitioner to be financial creditor has to be examined firstly by the Resolution Professional and thereafter, by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on the record. For whatever, the evidence available now, the Tribunal has taken the decision, which in the opinion of the Court, may be challenged before the Appellate Tribunal. 13. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioner has failed to make out any extra ordinary grounds to invoke Article-226 of the Constitution of India. As recorded in the preceding part of the order, the proceedings before the NCLT for proceeded in due course and the order-sheet also reflects the proceedings and the reasoned orders passed by the NCLT from time to time. Judgment relied upon by the petitioner in judgment of the Bombay High Court in case of Kamal K. Singh (supra), the same have been started with the challenge to declare that Section-231 of IBC as unconstitutional, which was later on not pressed. Circumstances, which the Bombay High Court recorded in the facts of those cases, was that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal had fixed the matter for pronouncement of order on the specific date, pending which the Presiding Officer was elevated to the Appellate Tribunal and the judgment in the proceedings were displayed without their being an actual pronouncement. It is in this glorying facts that High Court found procedural lapse and therefore, intervened. It is in this glorying facts that High Court found procedural lapse and therefore, intervened. With regard to the reliance on judgment of Rojer Mathew (supra), clearly para-204, which list the non-exhaustive list of statutes under which the Tribunal have been constituted wherein ICB is at Sr. No.23, refers to the provision of Section-62 and Section-182 of IBC. Both these sections are providing for an appeal to Supreme Court. Moreover, reliance is on para-384 by the learned Advocate for the petitioner to contend that the Tribunal if not situated within the State, cannot be considered in the contest of the present facts. Firstly what is referred in Para-384 is the existence of Tribunal in the territorial jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court, which in the present case, without any dispute is in existence. The Court cannot accept the arguments of the petitioner that 'Tribunal' i.e. referred to in para-384, also be extended to Appellate Tribunal as well. The Court cannot therefore, accept argument that in case where appeal is to be preferred and the Appellate Authority is not falling within the territorial of the jurisdictional High Court, in all such cases, Article-226 must be invoked. This in the opinion of the Court, is not purport of ruling in Para-384 of judgment in case of Rojer Mathew (supra). With regard to the judgment of this Court, in case of Dilip Sinh Madansinh Sisodiya (supra), it was the case that no decision on the application under Section-60 by the NCLT and that no decision situation was leading to frustrating the right of the petitioner therein. Such is not the fact in the present case, where the NCLT has dealt with contention of the petitioner in the application rightly or wrongly. Therefore, in Appeal it is open for the petitioner to challenge such findings. The Court is therefore, of the view that though writ petition can be maintained, in view of the vast powers of the High Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. However, in the facts of this case, the Court is not inclined to exercise such powers in view of the existing statutory alternative efficacious remedy. The Court is of the view that any interference at this stage, even on the procedural aspect would bring ongoing proceedings under IBC to halt, which the Court is not inclined in view of time line that statute prescribes. The Court is of the view that any interference at this stage, even on the procedural aspect would bring ongoing proceedings under IBC to halt, which the Court is not inclined in view of time line that statute prescribes. In any case, where the petitioner has not challenged the ultimate order dated 07-02-2020, merely on procedural aspect, the Court is not inclined to quash and set aside the order dated 05-02-2020. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the petition deserves to and hereby dismissed.