Jurisdictional limits and statutory appeal under insolvency law bar writ interference where the tribunal acts after hearing parties.

Where the adjudicating tribunal acts within its jurisdiction after hearing affected parties, a perceived illegality in including mortgaged leasehold land in the liquidation estate does not by itself justify writ interference. The Kerala High Court noted that the Tribunal had reconsidered the issue on remand and had construed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 while dealing with the liquidator's request, so the order could not be treated as jurisdictionally infirm. Any challenge to the correctness of that order was held to lie before the statutory appellate forum under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and no ground for judicial review under Article 226 was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the order dismissing the writ petition, in the context of the National Company Law Tribunal's jurisdiction, the availability of the statutory appellate remedy under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the alleged illegality in including the mortgaged properties in the liquidation estate.

Analysis: The Tribunal had reconsidered the matter pursuant to the earlier remand, heard the affected parties, and adopted a construction of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 while dealing with the liquidator's request to treat the mortgaged leasehold land as part of the liquidation estate. On that basis, the order could not be characterised as one passed without jurisdiction. Any grievance about the correctness or legality of that order was held to be a matter for the appellate forum under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court also noted that the appellants had not established any jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity justifying judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: No interference was called for. The challenge failed, and the writ appeal was dismissed. The parties were left to work out their remedies before the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the adjudicating tribunal acts within its jurisdiction after hearing the affected parties, perceived illegality in its order does not justify writ interference if the statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy.

---