The appeals highlight jurisdictional constraints within insolvency proceedings, enforcing the exhaustion of statutory remedies available under the IBC before engaging higher courts.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 16^th day of October, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.

These appeals are filed challenging the judgment dated

12 September 2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.29918, 29945, 29578 and 29909 of 2025. Since common questions arise for consideration, these appeals are heard and disposed of together by this common judgment.

2. The short facts relevant for disposal of these Writ Appeals are as follows: Appellants stood as guarantors to the 5^th Respondent, who is a corporate debtor of the 3^rd Respondent Bank. Default in re-payment led to the account of the Corporate debtor being classified as an Non Performing Asset (NPA) by the Bank. Consequently, the personal guarantee furnished by the Appellants were invoked and they were called upon to repay the outstanding liabilities claimed to be due from the corporate debtor under the terms of the guarantee. The Bank thereafter moved an Original Application (O.A.) before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Ernakulam, against the corporate debtor and guarantors. Insolvency proceedings were also initiated by the Bank before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi. A preliminary order was rendered by the NCLT, Kochi appointing an interim Resolution Professional. A further order admitting the Company Petition and directing the Appellants not to transfer or alienate, encumber or dispose of their assets or their legal rights or beneficial interests therein was also rendered. The W.P.(C)s were filed by the Appellants inter alia challenging the said order of the NCLT, Kochi, terming the same to be in excess of its jurisdiction and in violation of the relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

3. The learned Single Judge, dismissed the W.P.(C)s inter alia holding that a challenge against an order rendered by the NCLT is to be raised before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) invoking the alternate remedy available under the IBC and no Writ Petition would lie to this Court on the said count. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, these appeals are filed.

4. When these appeals were taken up for admission, the learned counsel for the Appellants on the threshold submitted that he limits his contentions to the question of maintainability and contended that the Company Petition was not maintainable before the NCLT, Kochi for more reasons than one. The finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the NCLT, Kochi has jurisdiction to entertain the matter is, according to the learned counsel, erroneous in view of the specific provisions of the IBC. He proposed to substantiate his contention inter alia on the ground that no Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIPR) had been filed and that since Section 95 of the IBC comes within the purview of part III, the DRT would be the adjudicating authority and proper forum for filing a petition under Section 95 and not the NCLT.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank submitted that the learned Single Judge had only rendered a prima facie opinion regarding the jurisdiction of the NCLT in the matter and it had been unequivocally held by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment that the appropriate remedy open to the Appellants is to challenge the impugned order of the NCLT before the NCLAT as provided under Section 60 (1) of the IBC and not a Writ Petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. In view of the above, it is prayed that this Court may not proceed to entertain these appeals on merits and may relegate the Appellants to move the NCLAT. He also contended that this legal question was not raised before the NCLT.

6. We find merit in the contention put forth by the Respondent Bank that the equitabl