TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the order of the NCLAT when the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides an appeal to the Supreme Court; and whether the earlier interim injunction justified the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Analysis: The petition challenged the order of the NCLAT passed in an appeal arising under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The statutory scheme provides an appeal from the NCLAT to the Supreme Court, and the existence of that specific appellate remedy was treated as a bar to invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The earlier interim injunction was held to relate to disciplinary proceedings and not to the separate removal proceedings concerning the petitioner's functioning as Liquidator, and therefore it did not furnish a basis to entertain the writ petition. Since an efficacious statutory appeal was available, the Court declined to examine the merits of the impugned orders.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the challenge could not be entertained in writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates a complete appellate remedy to the Supreme Court against an NCLAT order, the High Court should not exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to examine the same order, absent a legally sustainable exceptional basis.
TaxTMI 
