Supervisory jurisdiction over tribunal orders prevails where statutory remedies exist and parallel proceedings or suppression undermine writ maintainability.

A judicial order of the National Company Law Tribunal was treated as amenable, if at all, only to supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and not as an ordinary writ under Article 226. The availability of an effective statutory remedy under the Companies Act and Tribunal Rules, together with parallel pursuit of an appeal and writ proceedings, weighed against writ maintainability. The text also notes that suppression of material facts, non-impleadment of the Tribunal where necessary, and denial of fair opportunity to respond undermined the petition. An earlier single-judge order granting temporary deferment was held not to be a binding precedent on maintainability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a challenge to an order of the National Company Law Tribunal lay under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability of alternate remedies and the pendency of parallel proceedings. (iii) Whether the writ petition was liable to fail for suppression of material facts, non-impleadment of the Tribunal, and denial of opportunity to the appellants. (iv) Whether the earlier single-judge order could be treated as a binding precedent to sustain the writ petition.

Issue: Whether a challenge to an order of the National Company Law Tribunal lay under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The impugned order was a judicial order of the Tribunal. Such an order was held to be amenable, if at all, only to supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and not to a writ under Article 226. The Court emphasized the distinction between the two constitutional jurisdictions and held that a judicial order of a tribunal could not be assailed as an ordinary writ petition under Article 226.

Conclusion: The challenge was not maintainable under Article 226.

Issue: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability of alternate remedies and the pendency of parallel proceedings.

Analysis: The Court held that the statutory remedy under the Companies Act and the Tribunal Rules was available, including the remedy against an ex parte order. It further found that the writ petitioners had in fact pursued an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal while prosecuting the writ petition, amounting to parallel proceedings. The existence of an efficacious statutory remedy, coupled with the pursuit of multiple forums, weighed against writ interference.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of alternate remedy and parallel proceedings.

Issue: Whether the writ petition was liable to fail for suppression of material facts, non-impleadment of the Tribunal, and denial of opportunity to the appellants.

Analysis: The Court found that material facts were suppressed, including the pendency of appeal proceedings and the true position regarding the impugned order. It also held that, although later decisions had nuanced the rule, the Tribunal was a necessary party where it was required to defend its order. In addition, the appellants were not given adequate time to file a counter affidavit, which was treated as a denial of fair opportunity.

Conclusion: The writ petition suffered from suppression and procedural unfairness, and the objection regarding the Tribunal's presence had merit.

Issue: Whether the earlier single-judge order could be treated as a binding precedent to sustain the writ petition.

Analysis: The Court held that the earlier order merely granted temporary deferment pending appeal and did not decide the maintainability of a writ against an NCLT order. It therefore could not operate as a binding precedent on the point in issue.

Conclusion: The earlier order was not a binding precedent on maintainability.

Final Conclusion: The Court held that the writ court had erred in entertaining the petition against the Tribunal's order, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A judicial order of a tribunal should ordinarily be challenged under the appropriate supervisory jurisdiction and not by invoking Article 226 as an ordinary writ, especially where an effective statutory remedy exists and the litigant is pursuing parallel proceedings or suppressing material facts.

---