Writ jurisdiction barred where insolvency remedies exist and no exceptional ground justified High Court interference.

Recovery proceedings concerning pre-CIRP dues and liabilities said to fall outside an approved resolution plan were held to lie within the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code framework. The Code was treated as a complete and self-contained mechanism with a specialised adjudicatory hierarchy, so disputes within its domain should ordinarily be pursued before the adjudicating authority and appellate forum. High Court interference under Article 226 remains confined to exceptional cases such as lack of jurisdiction, gross violation of natural justice, or manifest arbitrariness. No such exceptional circumstance was shown, and the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory remedy under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The dispute arose from recovery proceedings relating to pre-CIRP dues and liabilities alleged to be outside the approved resolution plan. The governing framework under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a complete and self-contained code providing a specialised adjudicatory hierarchy, and issues falling within its domain are ordinarily to be pursued before the adjudicating authority and the appellate forum. High Court interference under Article 226 is reserved for exceptional situations such as want of jurisdiction, gross violation of natural justice, or manifest arbitrariness. The case did not disclose any such exceptional circumstance, and the petitioner was required to pursue the remedy available under the Code.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---