JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. 1. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction restraining the 2 nd respondent Tribunal from proceeding further with the Liquidation proceedings in CP(IBA)/11/KOB/2020 as against the properties of the petitioners covered by Exts.P1 to P16. Petitioners have also sought for a direction to the 2 nd respondent Tribunal to first take up, consider, and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P31, the application filed by the petitioners challenging the maintainability of the liquidation proceedings in CP(IBA)/11/KOB/2020 on the file of the NCLT, Kochi in respect of their properties before proceeding further with any steps in the liquidation process that concern or relate to the petitioners' properties covered by Exts.P1 to P16. 2. Petitioners submit that they are the absolute owners of the property having an extent of 5.86 Acres of land covered by Ext.P1 to P16 title deeds. The Corporate Debtor has availed a loan facility of Rs.10 Crores from Federal Bank Limited. Upon default in repayment of the loan, Federal Bank Limited initiated proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by filing IBA/11/KOB/2020 before the NCLT, Kochi Bench. The application was admitted for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, appointing the Interim Resolution Professional to carry out the functions as mentioned under the Code. Later, the NCLT by Ext.P18 order initiated liquidation proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, and the Tribunal appointed the 3rd respondent as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor. The specific contention raised by the petitioners is that they are not the corporate debtors, and the subject properties are not part of the corporate debtor's assets. However, the 3rd respondent is entertaining and processing applications as though the said properties belong to the corporate debtor. As the petitioners are not corporate debtors, the Liquidator has no right whatsoever to take any coercive steps against the said third-party properties as part of the liquidation process. It is further submitted that certain third parties have preferred claims before the 3rd respondent and also filed applications before the 2nd respondent Tribunal under Section 60 (5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , seeking directions to execute and register sale deeds in respect of the petitioners' property, as if the said land forms part of the liquidation estate of the corporate debtor. The specific case of the petitioners is that they have not executed any agreement, instrument, or document transferring, assigning, creating, or incorporating any right, title, or interest in the subject property in favour of any person, including the corporate debtor, and therefore, the subject property cannot form part of the liquidation estate within the meaning of Section s 36 (3) and 36(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 . Petitioners would contend that, in the absence of any deed or instrument of assignment or conveyance, the inclusion of the petitioners' property within the liquidation estate is wholly unsustainable and beyond the jurisdictional competence of the National Company Law Tribunal. It is in the said circumstance that the petitioners have filed Ext.P31 I.A.No.266 of 2025 in IBA/11/KOB/2020, challenging the maintainability of the proceedings, asserting that the NCLT has no jurisdiction over third-party properties not forming part of the liquidation estate. It is in the said circumstance that the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3 rd respondent and relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, (2019) 4 SCC 17 and Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Ltd v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company, 2021 SCC Online SC 313 , the learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent would contend that the writ courts should not interfere in IBC matters considering the statutory framework and provision for alternate remedy and that the said principle has been followed by this Court in Ideal Surgical v. National Company Law Tribunal (judgment dated 02.07.2021 in WP (C) No. 85257/2021). It is further submitted that the petitioners have admittedly moved Ext.31 application before the NCLT for similar reliefs, and the case is posted for the reply of the 3rd respondent, which has already been filed, and the petitioners have already invoked an alternate remedy for the same reliefs, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor, the MIR Realtors Pvt. Ltd had entered into a joint venture agreement with the petitioners to develop a real estate township project called 'MIR Green Metropolis' in an extent of 5 Acres 86 Cents and 648 Sq. Links and the 2 nd petitioner are the majority shareholders of the Corporate Debtor, holding 46.60% shareholding in the company. Links and the 2 nd petitioner are the majority shareholders of the Corporate Debtor, holding 46.60% shareholding in the company. The joint venture agreements executed between the Corporate Debtor and the petitioners are produced as Ext.R3(a), and a copy of the building permit for the project is produced as Ext.R3(b). Amounts were collected from various allottees, and sale agreements were executed by the petitioners and allottees, apart from the construction agreement executed by the builder and allottees. It is using the said funds that constructions were undertaken and possession was handed over to the allottees from 2016 onwards. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was initiated against the builder company by the NCLT in a petition filed by the Federal Bank Ltd, and a Resolution Professional was appointed. Since CIPR was not successful, liquidation was ordered, and the 3rd respondent was appointed as Liquidator. Claims have been received from various allottees, most of whom have been handed over possession of the apartments constructed by the builder company. The apartment project called 'JADE HEIGHTS-1' was constructed on 53 cents of land belonging to petitioner No.1, and construction was completed, and allottees have also been put in possession of their apartments from 2016. However, registration remains incomplete, and about 36 allottees have approached the NCLT for registration of their apartments and in the counter affidavit, details from 36 claims are put forward. As regards 'EMARAD PARK', which was also constructed in the property belonging to the 1 st and 2 nd petitioners, the constructions have been completed and apartments were allotted, but allottees of two apartments have filed a claim against the liquidator, which is also pending consideration. Apart from the above two projects, there is an incomplete construction of 'JADE HEIGHTS-2' belonging to the 2nd applicant and his wife and the property is mortgaged with the Kerala Financial Corporation for the construction loan availed by the builder company. The petitioners filed cases before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, for cancellation of the agreements in favour of the allottees, in as much as 43 cases are pending consideration before the civil court. It is without disclosing any of these aspects that the petitioners have approached this Court. The intention of the petitioners is only to stall the liquidation proceedings. The petitioners filed cases before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, for cancellation of the agreements in favour of the allottees, in as much as 43 cases are pending consideration before the civil court. It is without disclosing any of these aspects that the petitioners have approached this Court. The intention of the petitioners is only to stall the liquidation proceedings. It is further reiterated that the 2nd petitioner is the majority shareholder of the Corporate Debtor, holding 46.60% shareholding in the company, and the conduct of the said petitioner was deprecated by the NCLT, as evident from Ext.R3(e). It is also brought to the notice of this Court that Ext.R3(f) claim was submitted by the petitioners before the Resolution Professional, which would categorically confirm their arrangement with the Corporate Debtor. 4. Regarding the contention of the petitioners that the NCLT has no jurisdiction to entertain applications filed by third parties, it is submitted that the petitioners in those cases are the allottees of the apartments who have filed claims before the Liquidator since registration is pending. About 97 claims have been received in respect of the subject matter property and apartments. It is submitted that the petitioners have permitted the construction of residential projects on the land by the Corporate Debtor, and possession has also been handed over to the allottees. The allottees have a right under Regulation 46A of the IBBI(Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. Moreover, the petitioners cannot disturb the possession of the allottees who have protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. They had not registered land in favour of the Corporate Debtor only to save stamp duty and registration fees. However, they can be directed by the NCLT or any other Court to register the land in favour of the allottees. It is further submitted that the non consideration of Ext.P31 application filed by the petitioners is solely for the default on the part of the petitioners and petition was filed as early as on 14.07.2025 and a defect was noted that the original power of attorney was not produced and the same was re-presented after curing the defects only on 09.09.2025 and the case was posted for reply and the respondent has filed the reply as evident from Ext.R3(g). It is submitted that the cases filed by the allottees have been pending from 2023, and the delay is only attributable to the petitioners' failure to file the reply within time, and the NCLT imposed a cost of Rs.1 lakh on the petitioners for the conduct of delaying the adjudication, as evident from Ext.R3(h). In the above-said contentions, the respondents have sought dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides. 6. In Ext.P31 petition, the petitioners have sought for declaration that the immovable properties of the petitioners do not form part of the liquidation estate of the corporate debtor, and the corporate insolvency resolution process is not maintainable in respect of the said properties. 7. Going by the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent, the non-consideration of the application is solely for the delay on the part of the petitioners. As per the averment in the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent, the 1st petitioner is the majority shareholder with the corporate debtor having more than 46.60% share in the company. But the stand taken by the petitioners is that there is no joint venture agreement with the corporate debtor, and documents have been forged and for which they have also filed several suits before the civil court for cancellation of the agreements. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that almost 36 cases have been filed before the NCLT by the allottees seeking registration of sale deeds, the details of which are detaialed in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit. He would further submit that as regards case No.1 stated in paragraph 9, ie., IA(IBC)/364/KOB/2023, the proceedings have been stayed by this Court in OP(C) No.1393 of 2025 and the case mentioned as item No.10, ie, IA(IBC)403/KOB/2023, the proceedings of which have been stayed by this Court in OP(C) No.1384 of 2025. Except for these cases, 24 cases of the year 2023 mentioned in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, are taken up together for consideration by the NCLT. It is also to be seen that the pleadings are also complete in respect of Ext.P31 petition filed by the petitioners herein. Except for these cases, 24 cases of the year 2023 mentioned in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, are taken up together for consideration by the NCLT. It is also to be seen that the pleadings are also complete in respect of Ext.P31 petition filed by the petitioners herein. In the light of the above, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petitions as follows: The NCLT, Kochi shall take up Ext.31 petition filed by the petitioners and hear and dispose of the same, while NCLT take up the batch of claim petitions (24 in numbers) filed by the allottees for registration of the deeds and consider the claim of the petitioners that the immovable properties of the applicants do not form part of the liquidation estate of the corporate debtor and that the insolvency resolution process and proceedings are not maintainable in respect of the said properties. A decision on the same shall be taken after hearing all the concerned parties, including the allottees, whose cases are posted together for consideration by the NCLT. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.