https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400922 A writ petition was maintainable despite an available IBC appeal because the challenge went to the National Company Law Tribunal's jurisdiction, not merely the merits of the de-freezing order. The Bombay High Court held that an order wholly without jurisdiction can be tested in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding an alternate remedy. It further held that the MPID Act is a complete code for attachment, objections and appeals, so section 60(5) of the IBC cannot be used to question attachment or de-freezing actions taken under that special State enactment. The impugned de-freezing order was quashed, and the attachment challenge was left to the Designated Court under the MPID Act. en-us Mon, 09 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Nov 2020 11:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400922 A writ petition was maintainable despite an available IBC appeal because the challenge went to the National Company Law Tribunal's jurisdiction, not merely the merits of the de-freezing order. The Bombay High Court held that an order wholly without jurisdiction can be tested in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding an alternate remedy. It further held that the MPID Act is a complete code for attachment, objections and appeals, so section 60(5) of the IBC cannot be used to question attachment or de-freezing actions taken under that special State enactment. The impugned de-freezing order was quashed, and the attachment challenge was left to the Designated Court under the MPID Act. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 09 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400922