<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (5) TMI 1744 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792541</link>
    <description>A writ petition challenging an appellate tribunal order under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was not entertained because a statutory appeal to the Supreme Court was available. The HC held that the existence of that appellate remedy made writ jurisdiction inappropriate in the circumstances, so it declined to examine the merits of the challenge. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal before the Supreme Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 May 2026 08:29:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904601" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 1744 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792541</link>
      <description>A writ petition challenging an appellate tribunal order under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was not entertained because a statutory appeal to the Supreme Court was available. The HC held that the existence of that appellate remedy made writ jurisdiction inappropriate in the circumstances, so it declined to examine the merits of the challenge. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal before the Supreme Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792541</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>