https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778923 Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 will not ordinarily be exercised against an interlocutory NCLT order where an efficacious appellate remedy exists and the complaining party had notice and an opportunity to participate but did not avail it. The High Court found that notice had been served, time had been granted to file a reply, and no reply or extension application was filed before the NCLT. It also noted that the matter had been delayed by repeated settlement efforts and that the insolvency petition was restored after the financial creditor stated no settlement had been accepted. No real breach of natural justice or jurisdictional error was shown, so interference was refused and the insolvency proceedings were allowed to continue. en-us Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:37:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778923 Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 will not ordinarily be exercised against an interlocutory NCLT order where an efficacious appellate remedy exists and the complaining party had notice and an opportunity to participate but did not avail it. The High Court found that notice had been served, time had been granted to file a reply, and no reply or extension application was filed before the NCLT. It also noted that the matter had been delayed by repeated settlement efforts and that the insolvency petition was restored after the financial creditor stated no settlement had been accepted. No real breach of natural justice or jurisdictional error was shown, so interference was refused and the insolvency proceedings were allowed to continue. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778923