The availability of an appeal is not an absolute bar in exercising the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under certain circumstances.

JUDGMENT

1. The present review application has been filed seeking review of the order dated February 1, 2021 passed in WPO No.11 of 2021.

2. By the said order, this Court had dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate appellate forum for ventilating its grievance.

3. The first ground of review is that an appeal was maintainable against the orders challenged in the writ petition under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and not under Section 421(1) of the Companies act, 2013 (for short, 'the 2013 act') as held. as far as such argument is concerned, an observation was recorded in the order under review, to the effect that Section 421(1) of the 2013 act specifically stipulates that any person aggrieved by 'an order' of the Tribunal may prefer an appeal to the appellate Tribunal. However, ultimately the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the 'appropriate appellate forum' for ventilating its grievance.

4. Section 61 of the Code provides for an appeal against an order passed by the adjudicating authority, i.e., the National Company Law Tribunal (in brief, 'the NCLT') in respect of matters covered by Part II of the Code, which deals with insolvency resolution and liquidation for corporate persons. Section 4 of the Code stipulates that Part II shall apply to matters relating to the insolvency and liquidation of corporate debtors where the minimum amount of the default is one lakh rupees.

5. Section 421(1) of the 2013 act, on the other hand, contains a sweeping provision of appeal against all orders of the NCLT.

6. Three orders were challenged in the writ petition. By the second order dated February 21, 2020, the NCLT had dismissed MISC-a (IB) No.158/KB/2020 for want of prosecution. The petitioner had prayed for recall of an earlier order dated December 19, 2019 by way of the said application.

7. The first impugned order dated December 19, 2019 recorded that the petitioner's application bearing CP (IB) No.602/KB/2019 was dismissed on merit, as the applicant was absent at the time of call.

8. By the third impugned order dated December 9, 2020, Ia (IB) No.390/KB/2020, filed by the petitioner, was also dismissed for non-prosecution due to absence of representation on the part of the petitioner.

9. although it has been mentioned in the writ petition that the petitioner had filed application No.602/KB/2019 for a direction on the liquidator to adjudicate the proof of claim filed on November 21, 2017, it was neither pleaded clearly nor indicated in the writ petition bearing WPO No.11 of 2021, as to whether the matter arose from a proceeding under Part II of the Code, which relates to insolvency and liquidation of corporate debtors where the minimum amount of default is one lakh rupees.

10. In any event, Section 421(1) of the 2013 act is the residuary provision for appeal and applies to all orders which are not appealable otherwise, including under Section 61 of the Code.

11. In view of there being no clear indication and/or pleading in the writ petition to that effect, it was held in the order under review dated February 11, 2021 that Section 421(1) of the 2013 act stipulates a provision for appeal to the appellate Tribunal.

12. However, the writ petition was ultimately dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the 'appropriate appellate forum' for ventilating its grievance. as such, no specific appellate forum was specified for the petitioner to approach. although Section 421(1) was mentioned in the previous paragraph of the said order, the said order of this Court could not confer or curtail a right of appeal, if otherwise provided in law. as such, the outcome of the writ petitioner would be the same if, instead of Section 421(1) of the 2013 act, Section 61 of the Code was mentioned as alternative remedy.

13. as such, there is no scope of revie