https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390587 The High Court declined to entertain writ relief where the impugned NCLT order was appealable under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and an efficacious statutory appeal to the NCLAT was available; any alleged error could be corrected in appeal, so Article 226 was not invoked. It further held that, on the facts, the NCLT had power and jurisdiction to decide the matter, and no comparable absence of jurisdiction was shown. The Court found no prima facie violation of natural justice or constitutional infirmity, and left all issues, including encashment of bank guarantees and related contractual contentions, open for the appellate forum. en-us Mon, 23 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jan 2020 06:56:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390587 The High Court declined to entertain writ relief where the impugned NCLT order was appealable under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and an efficacious statutory appeal to the NCLAT was available; any alleged error could be corrected in appeal, so Article 226 was not invoked. It further held that, on the facts, the NCLT had power and jurisdiction to decide the matter, and no comparable absence of jurisdiction was shown. The Court found no prima facie violation of natural justice or constitutional infirmity, and left all issues, including encashment of bank guarantees and related contractual contentions, open for the appellate forum. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 23 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390587