Writ jurisdiction and bench concurrence: alternative remedy did not bar challenge to prima facie defective insolvency proceedings.

Writ jurisdiction was held prima facie maintainable despite an alternative statutory remedy because exceptions such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, constitutional challenge and vires issues may justify intervention. On the insolvency challenge, the Court found a prima facie jurisdictional defect where the NCLT order appeared to have been pronounced by one member before the other member's concurrence, contrary to the requirement of a two-member bench acting together. It also held prima facie that the insolvency petition appeared time-barred and could not be revived merely by transfer. The impugned NCLT and appellate orders were stayed, and protective interim relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of an alternative statutory remedy, including on the ground that the challenge raised a jurisdictional and constitutional issue; (ii) Whether the NCLT proceedings and order were prima facie vitiated because the order was pronounced by one member without prior concurrence of the other member and because the insolvency action appeared to be time-barred.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of an alternative statutory remedy, including on the ground that the challenge raised a jurisdictional and constitutional issue.

Analysis: The Court noted the settled principle that alternative remedy is a rule of self-imposed restraint and not an absolute bar. It identified recognized exceptions, including lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, challenge to vires, and cases where the statutory authority acts contrary to the enactment. The Court also observed, prima facie, that the words "any Court" in section 231 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code could not be read to include constitutional courts so as to exclude writ jurisdiction in appropriate cases.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be maintainable prima facie and not liable to be rejected solely on the ground of alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the NCLT proceedings and order were prima facie vitiated because the order was pronounced by one member without prior concurrence of the other member and because the insolvency action appeared to be time-barred.

Analysis: The Court held prima facie that, under section 419(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, a two-member bench was required to act together, and the impugned order appeared to have been pronounced and signed by only one member before the other member later recorded consent through an addendum-cum-corrigendum. Relying on the settled principle that a judgment must represent the final decision of the whole court at the time of pronouncement, the Court found a prima facie jurisdictional defect. The Court also held prima facie that the insolvency petition, filed more than three years after the stated cause of action, was time-barred and that a time-barred proceeding would not revive merely because it was transferred to the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The impugned NCLT order and the appellate order were stayed prima facie, and the Court found a strong prima facie case for interference.

Final Conclusion: The Court granted rule and protective interim relief in favour of the petitioner, while leaving the substantive issues for final adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction may be invoked despite an alternative remedy where the challenge is to jurisdiction, constitutional validity, or a manifest procedural illegality, and a judicial order must be the collective and contemporaneous decision of the bench that heard the matter.

---