A supervisory challenge under Article 227 was maintainable despite an available appellate remedy before the NCLAT because the grievance was that the tribunal had acted without jurisdiction. The High Court held that an alternative remedy does not bar review where a tribunal is alleged to have exceeded its authority or committed a jurisdictional error, and it rejected the maintainability objection. On contempt jurisdiction, the Court held that the NCLT could only examine wilful disobedience of the earlier order and could not alter the substantive interim arrangement by directing completion of the sale process. That direction was set aside, while the sale certificate and consequential steps were left to abide by the outcome of the pending interlocutory application.
A supervisory challenge under Article 227 was maintainable despite an available appellate remedy before the NCLAT because the grievance was that the tribunal had acted without jurisdiction. The High Court held that an alternative remedy does not bar review where a tribunal is alleged to have exceeded its authority or committed a jurisdictional error, and it rejected the maintainability objection. On contempt jurisdiction, the Court held that the NCLT could only examine wilful disobedience of the earlier order and could not alter the substantive interim arrangement by directing completion of the sale process. That direction was set aside, while the sale certificate and consequential steps were left to abide by the outcome of the pending interlocutory application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
