### Writ Petition Is Not Maintainable Against NCLT Orders Subject to Statutory Appellate Remedies Under Companies Act Summary The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an interim "day order" passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The Court ruled that since Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, provides a specific statutory appeal mechanism to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate appellate forum.

The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a "day order" dated 20.08.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Division Bench, Court-II, Chennai.

In the impugned order, the NCLT had directed the Respondent to file a reply within two days despite technical difficulties and scheduled a hearing for 29.10.2025.

The Petitioner sought to quash this interim proceeding through the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

1. Whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an interim order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal when statutory appellate remedies are available under the Companies Act, 2013.

The Court primarily applied the statutory scheme of the Companies Act, 2013, specifically Section 421, which provides that an appeal against any order (including interim orders) of the NCLT lies before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

It further referenced Section 428 of the Companies Act, 2013, which stipulates that any person aggrieved by an order of the Appellate Tribunal may prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court of India.

The court also relied on the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies regarding the discretionary exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court examined the nature of the challenged order and the statutory framework governing company law disputes.

It observed that the impugned order was a procedural "day order" regarding the filing of replies and listing of the matter.

The Bench reasoned that since the Companies Act, 2013, provides a robust and specific hierarchical appellate mechanism—moving from the NCLT to the NCLAT under Section 421, and subsequently to the Supreme Court under Section 428—the Petitioner cannot bypass these specialized forums.

Consequently, the Court found that invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 was improper given the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy provided by the legislature.

The Writ Petition was dismissed, with the Court granting the Petitioner liberty to work out her remedy before the appropriate forum (NCLAT) in accordance with the law.

All connected Miscellaneous Petitions were either ordered or closed.