https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436423 An NCLAT order under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was challenged by writ petition, but the High Court treated the statutory appeal to the Supreme Court as a complete and efficacious remedy that barred recourse under Article 226. The earlier interim injunction did not assist the petitioner because it related to disciplinary proceedings, not the separate removal proceedings concerning the petitioner's role as Liquidator. On that basis, the Court declined to examine the merits of the impugned orders and held the writ petition not maintainable. en-us Wed, 01 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Apr 2023 07:58:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436423 An NCLAT order under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was challenged by writ petition, but the High Court treated the statutory appeal to the Supreme Court as a complete and efficacious remedy that barred recourse under Article 226. The earlier interim injunction did not assist the petitioner because it related to disciplinary proceedings, not the separate removal proceedings concerning the petitioner's role as Liquidator. On that basis, the Court declined to examine the merits of the impugned orders and held the writ petition not maintainable. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 01 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436423