Practice Areas

Follow us

IBC-Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked Despite Availability Of Alternative Remedy If Allegation Pertains To Lack Of Jurisdiction Of NCLT: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that a writ petition Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the jurisdiction of NCLT in a matter, is maintainable despite existence of an alternate remedy in form of appeal before NCLAT. “Although a wrongful exercise of available jurisdiction would not be sufficient to invoke the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the ground of absence of jurisdiction could trigger such invocation,” a Single Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held. The Judge relied on the Supreme Court’s findings in Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1542, as per which,
“in so far as the question of exercise of the power conferred by Article 226, despite the availability of a statutory alternative remedy, is concerned, the distinction between lack of jurisdiction and the wrongful exercise of the available jurisdiction, should certainly be taken into account by High Courts, when Article 226 is sought to be invoked bypassing a statutory alternative remedy provided by a special statute.”

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/bighelpers/public_html/asialawoffices/wp-content/themes/justicia/framework/modules/blog/templates/parts/single/single-navigation.php on line 18