High Court jurisdiction under Article 227 is ousted regarding NCLAT proceedings given the statutory appeal to Supreme Court.

The Petitioner, the former Managing Director of M/s. Shree Vaishnodevi Mills Pvt. Ltd., filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court.

The Petitioner sought a direction to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, to expeditiously dispose of a pending appeal [Company App (AT)(CH) (INS) No. 443 of 2024] within a specific timeframe.

The Petitioner argued that because the NCLAT was granting routine, periodic adjournments and Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) only allows appeals to the Supreme Court against final orders on questions of law, a writ/revision was necessary to address the delay.

Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to direct the NCLAT to dispose of a pending matter within a specific timeframe.

Whether the statutory framework of the IBC ousts the High Court's interference in proceedings pending before the NCLAT.

The Court primarily considered Article 227 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court’s power of superintendence.

It applied Section 62 of the IBC, 2016, which mandates that appeals against NCLAT orders lie exclusively with the Supreme Court on questions of law.

Furthermore, it referenced Section 64 of the IBC, which contains provisions for the expeditious disposal of applications and appeals by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal.

The Court reasoned that since Section 62 of the IBC provides a specific appellate route to the Supreme Court, the High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain a civil revision petition regarding NCLAT proceedings is effectively ousted.

The Court emphasized judicial restraint, noting that routine directions for "speedy disposal" interfere with a Tribunal's ability to manage its own board and systematically prioritize cases.

It observed that such directions should only be issued in exceptional circumstances with recorded reasons, taking into account practical difficulties and the conduct of the parties.

The Court concluded that the Petitioner has an adequate remedy under Section 64 of the IBC to move a petition for early hearing directly before the NCLAT rather than seeking a high court mandate.

The Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to file a petition before the NCLAT providing adequate reasons for the speedy disposal of the case as per the spirit of Section 64 of the IBC.

No order as to costs was made.