JUDGMENT : Sanjib Banerjee, J. (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Common order dated 20.01.2020 passed by the 2nd Respondent in MA/780/2019 and MA/1250/2019 in CP/280/IB/2018 and quash the same and forbear the respondents from in any manner concluding the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the 4th Respondent without considering the claim of the petitioner.) 1. The petitioner complains that the debt due to the petitioner from the corporate debtor was not taken into consideration while preparing the resolution plan. 2. The petitioner refers to a chart apparently prepared by the resolution professional on January 20, 2020 indicating the claims received from operational creditors. The chart has several columns including a column indicating the amounts claimed by the operational creditors and a further column showing the amounts admitted. A further column shows the amounts under verification. The petitioner’s name figures against Serial No.102 in the list and the amount claimed is shown to be in excess of Rs.41 crore. However, there is a special note pertaining to the petitioner’s claim which speaks of the claim being under litigation and, as such, the resolution professional not being able to determine the quantum due. The relevant note provides that “When the amount gets determined contingency provisions will be used to such determined dues”. There is a further note pertaining to claims sought to be under verification, to the effect that wherever details had not been provided by the claimants, the claims could not be determined. 3. The corporate debtor in this case was one Empee Distilleries Limited. In previous proceedings instituted before this court, the resolution plan as approved by the National Company Law Tribunal was challenged; but the challenge was repelled and an appeal carried from the relevant order of this court has culminated in the Supreme Court not interfering with the order. 4. In accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, claims are invited by the resolution professional and it is for the claimants, particularly the operational creditors, to pursue their claims before the resolution professional or, at any rate, before the NCLT, in course of the corporate insolvency resolution process. 5. Orders of the NCLT are amenable to appeal before the appellate tribunal. 5. Orders of the NCLT are amenable to appeal before the appellate tribunal. It does not appear that the present petitioner took any interest in the matter or pursued its claim at the appropriate stage. It is evident that the petitioner has not preferred any appeal within the time permitted. It would not do for the petitioner to merely suggest that since the time to prefer an appeal against the order approving the resolution plan has passed, the Writ Court will reopen the matter to enter into an arena of disputed facts pertaining to a money claim for the purpose of assessing the same. 6. The remedy of the petitioner may lie elsewhere; and even if the remedy may not be available, the petitioner has only itself to blame for not pursuing its claim with due diligence at the appropriate stage. The Writ Court will, ordinarily, not come to the assistance of a laggard or a person who sleeps over his rights. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, W.P.No.16764 of 2021 is not entertained and is dismissed. The petitioner is left free to pursue whatever other remedy that may be available to the petitioner in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.17728 and 17732 of 2021 are closed.