Writ jurisdiction and insolvency claims: High Court declined parallel relief where the same remittance dispute was already before the NCLT.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable where the same monetary claim from insolvency and liquidation proceedings was already pending before the NCLT under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Court found no basis to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction for parallel adjudication of the remittance claim, particularly since the dispute arose from the liquidation process and assignment of not readily realisable assets under Regulation 37A of the Liquidation Process Regulations. In that context, the Court declined to examine the alleged breach of Section 37(3) of the Indian Post Office Act and upheld the dismissal of the petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable for recovery of outstanding dues when the same claim was already pending before the National Company Law Tribunal.

Analysis: The claim for remittance of the outstanding amount had already been carried before the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and notice had been issued in those proceedings. The dispute also arose out of the liquidation process and the assignment of not readily realisable assets under Regulation 37A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. In that setting, the Court found no justification for invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction to seek the same relief in parallel. Since the issue of remittance was already pending before the National Company Law Tribunal, the Court declined to enter upon the alleged violation of Section 37(3) of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at that stage, and the challenge to the dismissal order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the same monetary claim arising from insolvency or liquidation proceedings is already pending before the National Company Law Tribunal, the High Court should ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for parallel adjudication of that claim.

---