Statutory appellate remedy under insolvency law bars writ review of disputed restructuring and contractual factual controversies.

An efficacious statutory appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code barred writ intervention where the dispute turned on contested facts arising from a restructuring arrangement. The High Court held that alleged breaches of the Master Restructuring Agreement, non-release of working capital and subsidy, and alleged non-compliance with RBI directions were essentially factual controversies better left to the statutory forum. Because the petitioners had participated in the insolvency proceedings and no exceptional circumstances were shown, the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court therefore declined to examine the merits and relegated the parties to the appellate remedy, while granting limited interim protection to permit filing of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) Whether the disputes raised, including alleged violation of restructuring terms, RBI guidelines and subsidy claims, could be examined in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The remedy under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was available against the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioners had participated in the insolvency proceedings over multiple hearings, and the controversy involved disputed factual questions arising out of the restructuring arrangement and the conduct of the parties. The existence of an effective appellate remedy, coupled with the absence of exceptional circumstances, weighed against exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioners were relegated to the statutory appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the disputes raised, including alleged violation of restructuring terms, RBI guidelines and subsidy claims, could be examined in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Court treated the alleged breaches of the Master Restructuring Agreement, the alleged non-release of working capital and subsidy, and the alleged non-compliance with RBI instructions as essentially factual controversies. It also held that claims arising from the contractual and restructuring framework could not ordinarily be converted into writ claims, particularly when the petitioners had not first pursued the appropriate authorities and when the insolvency framework itself conferred jurisdiction on the Adjudicating Authority over such matters.

Conclusion: These issues were held to be matters for the statutory forum and not for adjudication in writ proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to examine the merits, upheld the availability of the statutory appellate remedy, and disposed of the petition while granting limited interim protection to enable filing of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available under the insolvency law and the controversy turns on disputed questions of fact arising from contractual restructuring, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

---