Inherent tribunal power allows restoration of withdrawn insolvency proceedings where the statute is silent and jurisdiction is challenged.

An alternative statutory appeal did not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge went to the tribunal's own jurisdiction, so the writ petition was maintainable. The NCLT was held to have inherent and residuary power under its statutory framework and rules to restore a corporate insolvency petition that had earlier been permitted to be withdrawn, particularly where withdrawal was allowed with liberty to revive the matter on default and the statute was silent on restoration. The restoration order was therefore upheld, and the contractual consequences of the memorandum of understanding were left to be determined by the NCLT.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appeal before the NCLAT, and (ii) whether the NCLT had the power to restore a corporate insolvency petition that had been permitted to be withdrawn.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appeal before the NCLAT.

Analysis: An alternative statutory remedy ordinarily weighs against exercise of writ jurisdiction, but the exception applies where the impugned order is alleged to be without jurisdiction. The challenge here was directed to the NCLT's jurisdiction to recall or restore its earlier withdrawal order, bringing the case within the recognised exception to the rule of alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the NCLT had the power to restore a corporate insolvency petition that had been permitted to be withdrawn.

Analysis: The Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is residuary in character, and Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 preserves inherent powers to make orders necessary to meet the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. On that basis, a power to permit withdrawal of a petition necessarily carries the corresponding power to restore it where the statutory scheme is silent and the withdrawal was allowed with liberty to revive the matter on default.

Conclusion: The NCLT had inherent and residuary power to entertain the restoration application.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the restoration order did not succeed, and the disputed contractual consequences of the memorandum of understanding were left for determination by the NCLT.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute is silent, the tribunal's inherent and residuary jurisdiction may be invoked to restore a matter earlier permitted to be withdrawn, and the availability of an alternate remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction when the challenge is to the very jurisdiction of the tribunal.

---