Tribunal jurisdiction and writ review under insolvency law: public law lease disputes fall outside NCLT powers, but fraud inquiries remain within the Code.

An insolvency tribunal cannot exercise judicial review over a public law decision taken under a special statute, and a High Court may entertain a writ petition where the NCLT acts beyond its jurisdiction despite an available statutory appeal. On the mining lease dispute, the NCLT lacked power to direct execution of supplementary lease deeds, so writ review was justified. By contrast, allegations of fraudulent or malicious initiation of CIRP fall within the insolvency fora's adjudicatory domain because the Code expressly covers fraud in initiation and related conduct, with appellate scrutiny by the NCLAT. The appeal failed on the lease issue, while fraud-related jurisdiction remained within the insolvency framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition under Article 226/227 against an order of the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, despite the statutory appeal remedy under Section 61; (ii) Whether the NCLT and NCLAT had jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of fraud in the initiation of CIRP.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition under Article 226/227 against an order of the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, despite the statutory appeal remedy under Section 61.

Analysis: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a complete code, but the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the tribunal acts without jurisdiction. The scope of Section 60(5)(c) is wide, but it does not extend to decisions of statutory or quasi-judicial authorities taken in the public law domain under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. A refusal by the State to grant deemed extension of a mining lease is not a matter that the NCLT can judicially review. The resolution professional's powers to preserve assets do not enlarge the tribunal's jurisdiction to adjudicate such public law disputes.

Conclusion: The NCLT lacked jurisdiction to direct execution of supplementary lease deeds, and the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition.

Issue (ii): Whether the NCLT and NCLAT had jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of fraud in the initiation of CIRP.

Analysis: Section 65 specifically deals with fraudulent or malicious initiation of insolvency proceedings, and Sections 66 and 69 also provide for inquiry into fraudulent conduct and transactions. These provisions show that allegations of fraud in the initiation of CIRP fall within the adjudicatory domain of the NCLT, with appellate scrutiny by the NCLAT.

Conclusion: The NCLT and NCLAT did have jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of fraud, and such allegations could not by themselves justify bypassing the statutory appeal remedy.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the dispute concerning the mining lease was outside the NCLT's jurisdiction and amenable to writ review, even though fraud-related issues remained within the insolvency fora's competence.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory insolvency tribunal cannot exercise judicial review over public law decisions taken under a special enactment, and the existence of an appellate remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the tribunal acts beyond its lawful authority.

---