https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796372 Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 should not pre-empt the NCLT's initial determination of objections to its jurisdiction, the maintainability of execution petitions, or the executability of an NCLAT order under the Companies Act. Such objections must be raised before the Tribunal in which the execution petitions are pending. Where civil appeals are pending before the Supreme Court and its interim order stays only a remand direction, any broader stay of execution proceedings should be sought in those appeals. The notes state that Article 227 intervention is inappropriate where competent tribunal remedies and Supreme Court interim-relief proceedings remain available. en-us Thu, 30 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Aug 2026 08:48:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796372 Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 should not pre-empt the NCLT's initial determination of objections to its jurisdiction, the maintainability of execution petitions, or the executability of an NCLAT order under the Companies Act. Such objections must be raised before the Tribunal in which the execution petitions are pending. Where civil appeals are pending before the Supreme Court and its interim order stays only a remand direction, any broader stay of execution proceedings should be sought in those appeals. The notes state that Article 227 intervention is inappropriate where competent tribunal remedies and Supreme Court interim-relief proceedings remain available. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 30 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796372