Alternate statutory remedy under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code barred writ jurisdiction against an NCLT order.

Article 226 interference is ordinarily restrained where an efficacious statutory remedy exists. A writ petition challenging an NCLT order on grounds including lack of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice was held not maintainable because the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provided an appeal to the NCLAT and a further appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law. In these circumstances, the High Court declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction and dismissed the petition for availability of alternate efficacious remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability of alternate efficacious remedies under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The petition challenged the order of the National Company Law Tribunal on grounds including lack of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice. The Court held that interference under Article 226 is ordinarily restrained when an efficacious statutory remedy exists. It noted that the petitioner had a remedy of appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and thereafter a further appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. In these circumstances, the writ petition did not warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate efficacious remedy.

---