Writ jurisdiction and liquidation estate limits protect third-party property rights when tribunal action exceeds authority without hearing.

Availability of a statutory appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code did not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge alleged lack of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice, so the writ petitions were maintainable. The liquidation estate under the Code could include only assets legally forming part of the corporate debtor's estate and could not extend to third-party ownership interests; the impugned order was unsustainable to the extent it included the petitioners' mortgaged property. Because the proposed inclusion directly affected the petitioners' property rights, the Tribunal was required to afford notice and a hearing before taking a fresh decision. The order was set aside to that extent and the matter remitted for reconsideration after hearing the petitioners.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable notwithstanding the statutory appellate remedy under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) whether the National Company Law Tribunal could include the petitioners' mortgaged properties in the liquidation estate of the corporate debtor; (iii) whether such inclusion could be ordered without notice and hearing to the petitioners.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable notwithstanding the statutory appellate remedy under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: Availability of an appeal does not, by itself, bar writ jurisdiction. The rule of alternate remedy is one of self-imposed restraint, and an exception applies where the impugned order is alleged to be without jurisdiction or passed in breach of natural justice. Since the challenge went to the power of the Tribunal to direct inclusion of the petitioners' property in the liquidation estate, the writ court could examine the matter.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the National Company Law Tribunal could include the petitioners' mortgaged properties in the liquidation estate of the corporate debtor.

Analysis: The liquidation estate under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code includes assets over which the corporate debtor has ownership rights and certain other assets, but it excludes personal assets of shareholders or partners and assets owned by third parties. The order under challenge did not clearly distinguish between the corporate debtor's leasehold rights and the petitioners' ownership rights. To the extent the order purported to bring the petitioners' ownership interests into the liquidation estate, the matter required reconsideration.

Conclusion: The Tribunal could include only such assets as legally formed part of the liquidation estate, and the impugned order was unsustainable to the extent it included the petitioners' property.

Issue (iii): Whether such inclusion could be ordered without notice and hearing to the petitioners.

Analysis: The petitioners' properties were directly affected by the proposed inclusion in the liquidation estate. The Tribunal was required to act consistently with natural justice and its own procedural rules. Since the petitioners were already before the Tribunal in related proceedings, fairness required that they be heard before any fresh decision was taken on inclusion of their properties.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not stand without affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside to the extent it permitted inclusion of the petitioners' mortgaged land in the liquidation estate, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after hearing the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tribunal's order directly affects third-party property rights, it must clearly confine itself to assets legally forming part of the liquidation estate and decide the matter after observing natural justice; an available appellate remedy does not preclude writ interference where jurisdictional excess or denial of hearing is alleged.

---