https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469831 Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was declined against a demand notice issued to personal guarantors because the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provides a self-contained mechanism. The petitioners were permitted to raise before the NCLT their objection that they could not be proceeded against as guarantors due to an alleged release of guarantee. Relying on the IBC framework and the cited Supreme Court and Delhi High Court authorities, the Court held that the relief sought could be effectively considered by the NCLT, so plenary writ jurisdiction was not exercised. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue objections before the insolvency forum. en-us Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jul 2026 15:57:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469831 Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was declined against a demand notice issued to personal guarantors because the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provides a self-contained mechanism. The petitioners were permitted to raise before the NCLT their objection that they could not be proceeded against as guarantors due to an alleged release of guarantee. Relying on the IBC framework and the cited Supreme Court and Delhi High Court authorities, the Court held that the relief sought could be effectively considered by the NCLT, so plenary writ jurisdiction was not exercised. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue objections before the insolvency forum. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469831