Jurisdiction under a special attachment statute prevails; IBC cannot be used to challenge MPID attachment and de-freezing orders.

A writ petition was maintainable despite an available IBC appeal because the challenge went to the National Company Law Tribunal's jurisdiction, not merely the merits of the de-freezing order. The Bombay High Court held that an order wholly without jurisdiction can be tested in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding an alternate remedy. It further held that the MPID Act is a complete code for attachment, objections and appeals, so section 60(5) of the IBC cannot be used to question attachment or de-freezing actions taken under that special State enactment. The impugned de-freezing order was quashed, and the attachment challenge was left to the Designated Court under the MPID Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) Whether the National Company Law Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to entertain a challenge to attachment and de-freezing action taken under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The existence of an alternate statutory appeal does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. The challenge was to the authority of the National Company Law Tribunal to pass the de-freezing order at all, rather than to the merits of the dispute. In such a case, the High Court could exercise supervisory and writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the National Company Law Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to entertain a challenge to attachment and de-freezing action taken under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

Analysis: The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 is a complete code for attachment, objections, adjudication and appeal in relation to properties of a financial establishment. The remedy against attachment lies before the Designated Court under that Act, and the order of that Court is appealable to the High Court. The jurisdiction under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be stretched to cover a challenge to an action taken under a special State enactment in the realm of public law. The duties of the resolution professional and the moratorium provisions do not displace the forum created under the MPID Act for deciding validity of attachment, especially when ownership and attachment issues remain subject to determination by the competent court under that Act.

Conclusion: The National Company Law Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the MPID attachment or to order de-freezing of the bank account.

Final Conclusion: The impugned de-freezing order was quashed, and the challenge to the MPID attachment was left to be pursued before the Designated Court under the MPID Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute creates a complete mechanism for attachment, objections and appellate review, and the dispute concerns validity of action taken under that statute, section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be invoked to confer jurisdiction on the National Company Law Tribunal.

---