Constitutional jurisdiction and company-court powers permitted challenge to a recovery auction order, which remained stayed pending Supreme Court disposal.

The 1993 recovery regime vests adjudication of liability and execution in the Debts Recovery Tribunal and Recovery Officer, and overrides inconsistent company-law provisions. The High Court also recognised that its constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 remains available, and that a Company Judge dealing with winding-up matters under section 446 may invoke that jurisdiction. On that basis, the Official Liquidator's challenge to the auction order was treated as maintainable, and the Recovery Officer's auction order was kept stayed until disposal of the connected Supreme Court matter.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Official Liquidator's challenge to the Recovery Officer's auction order was maintainable before the Company Court and whether the High Court could stay the auction order despite the remedy available under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Analysis: The decision proceeds on the interaction between the recovery mechanism under the 1993 Act and the jurisdiction of the Company Court in winding up proceedings. The reasoning notes that the Supreme Court had held that adjudication of liability and execution under the 1993 Act lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and Recovery Officer, and that the Act overrides inconsistent provisions. At the same time, the judgment also recognises the carve-out for the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, and observes that the Company Judge, while dealing with matters under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, may also invoke that constitutional jurisdiction. In that setting, and because the question before the High Court was directly connected with a pending issue before the Supreme Court, the application by the Official Liquidator was treated as maintainable.

Conclusion: The High Court held that it could entertain the application and directed that the Recovery Officer's auction order remain stayed until disposal of the connected Supreme Court matter.

---