Residuary insolvency jurisdiction cannot stay a public-law administrative order lacking real nexus to insolvency proceedings.

Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be invoked to restrain implementation of a public-law administrative order that has no real nexus with the insolvency resolution process. The challenge was aimed at a District Magistrate's order issued under the disaster-management regime, not at any act arising from the insolvency proceedings themselves, so the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction to grant interim protection. The existence of an insolvency proceeding did not, by itself, expand residuary jurisdiction to cover disputes that belonged in the appropriate public-law forum. The restraint on alternative internet service providers was therefore properly removed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to restrain implementation of an order passed by the District Magistrate permitting residents to obtain internet services from providers of their choice.

Analysis: The challenge before the Adjudicating Authority was directed, in substance, against an order passed by the District Magistrate in exercise of powers under the disaster-management regime, and not against any act arising from the insolvency process itself. The residuary jurisdiction under Section 60(5) is broad, but it cannot be extended to disputes in the realm of public law or to matters where the corporate debtor seeks to bypass the appropriate forum for challenging an administrative order. The existence of an insolvency proceeding does not, by itself, create jurisdiction where the dispute lacks a real nexus with the insolvency resolution process.

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority had no jurisdiction to grant interim protection against implementation of the District Magistrate's order.

Final Conclusion: The order dismissing the application and removing the restraint on alternative internet service providers was legally justified, and the appeal disclosed no ground for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be used to adjudicate or stay a public-law administrative order that does not arise out of, or bear a real nexus to, the insolvency resolution process.

---