Article 227 supervisory review refused where notice, hearing opportunity, and an appellate remedy under insolvency law were available.

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 will not ordinarily be exercised against an interlocutory NCLT order where an efficacious appellate remedy exists and the complaining party had notice and an opportunity to participate but did not avail it. The High Court found that notice had been served, time had been granted to file a reply, and no reply or extension application was filed before the NCLT. It also noted that the matter had been delayed by repeated settlement efforts and that the insolvency petition was restored after the financial creditor stated no settlement had been accepted. No real breach of natural justice or jurisdictional error was shown, so interference was refused and the insolvency proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the NCLT order reviving the insolvency petition on the ground of denial of opportunity to file a formal reply and alleged violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The impugned order was passed after notice was served on the petitioner and after hearing both sides. The petitioner had been given time to file a reply, but no reply or extension application was filed before the NCLT. The record also showed that the dispute had been delayed by repeated settlement efforts, and the NCLT had restored the company petition after the financial creditor stated that no settlement had been accepted. The existence of an appellate remedy under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 also weighed against exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, since Article 227 is to be used only in exceptional cases such as want of jurisdiction or real breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not denied a meaningful opportunity of hearing, and no ground was made out for interference under Article 227.

Final Conclusion: The writ supervisory challenge to the revival order failed, and the insolvency proceedings before the NCLT were allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 will not ordinarily be exercised against an interlocutory NCLT order where an efficacious appellate remedy exists and the party complaining of natural justice had notice and opportunity to participate but did not avail it.

---