Supervisory jurisdiction cannot replace IBC appellate remedies for NCLT ex parte orders absent jurisdictional error or grave injustice.

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction cannot substitute the statutory appellate remedy under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for challenges to NCLT orders in liquidation proceedings. The NCLT has jurisdiction over such claims, appeals lie to the NCLAT, and Rule 49 of the NCLT Rules provides for setting aside an ex parte hearing. Supervisory intervention is discretionary and limited to jurisdictional error, failure or excess of jurisdiction, abuse of power, or grave injustice. Where the affected party knew of the orders but did not use the prescribed remedy in time, no basis arises for Article 227 interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 could be invoked to challenge orders of the NCLT, including an ex parte liability order and rejection of the application to set aside ex parte proceedings, when an appellate remedy was available under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Analysis: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code confers jurisdiction on the NCLT over claims and questions arising from liquidation proceedings and provides an appeal to the NCLAT against orders of the Adjudicating Authority. Rule 49 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules provides a mechanism to seek setting aside of an ex parte hearing. Supervisory jurisdiction is discretionary, to be exercised sparingly for jurisdictional errors, failure to exercise jurisdiction, transgression of jurisdiction, abuse of power or grave injustice, and cannot operate as an appellate remedy. The petitioner had knowledge of the NCLT orders but did not pursue the prescribed statutory remedy within time.

Conclusion: The petitioner's recourse to Article 227 was not justified in the presence of the statutory appellate remedy and absence of grounds warranting supervisory interference; the challenge to the NCLT proceedings failed.

---