O R D E R

(Order of the Court made by M.DURAISWAMY,J.)

Challenging the order passed in IBA/49/2019 on the file of the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-II, Chennai, the petitioner-Corporate Debtor has filed the above Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. This Court raised a query as to the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for the reason that as per Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the petitioner has got remedy before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

3. This Court, while dismissing the similar Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(PD).No.525 of 2022 [L & T Infra Investments Partners, Mumbai v. Ebenezar Inbaraj and the Deputy Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench] filed under Article 227 of the Constitution as not maintainable, followed the following judgments:-

(i) (2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 308 [Embassy Property Developments Private Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and others]

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“...

10.In the backdrop of the facts narrated and in the light of the rival contentions extracted above, the first question that arises for consideration is as to whether the High Court ought to interfere, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, with an order [Vasudevan v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLT 681] passed by NCLT in a proceeding under the IBC, 2016, despite the availability of a statutory alternative remedy of appeal to N .

CLAT

11.It is beyond any pale of doubt that the IBC, 2016 is a complete code in itself. As observed by this Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. I Bank [Innoventive CICI Industries Ltd. v. I Bank, (2018) 1 SCC 407 : (2018) 1 CICI SCC (Civ) 356 : AIR 2017 SC 4084] it is an exhaustive code on the subject-matter of insolvency in relation to corporate entities and others. It is also true that the IBC, 2016 is a single Unified Umbrella Code, covering the entire gamut of the law relating to insolvency resolution of corporate persons and others in a time-bound manner. The Code provides a three-tier mechanism, namely, (i) the NCLT, which is the adjudicating authority, (ii) the N , which is the appellate CLAT authority, and (iii) this Court as the final authority, for dealing with all issues that may arise in relation to the reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons. Insofar as insolvency resolution of corporate debtors and personal guarantors are concerned, any order passed by the NCLT is appealable to N under Section 61 of the CLAT IBC, 2016 and the orders of the N are amenable to the CLAT appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 62. It is in this context that the action of the State of Karnataka in bypassing the remedy of appeal to N and the act of the CLAT High Court in entertaining the writ petition against the order [Vasudevan v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine NCLT

681] of the NCLT are being questioned.

12.For finding an answer to the question on hand, the scope of the jurisdiction and the nature of the powers exercised by — (i) the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and (ii) the NCLT and N under the CLAT provisions of the IBC, 2016 are to be seen.

Jurisdiction and the powers of the High Court under Article 226

13.What is recognised by Article 226(1) is the power of every High Court to issue (i) directions, (ii) orders, or (iii) writs. They can be issued to (i) any person, or (ii) authority including the Government. They may be issued (i) for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III, and (ii) for any other purpose. But the exercise of the power recognised by clause (1) of Article 226, is restricted by the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, determined either by its geographical location or by the place where the cause of action, in whole or in part, arose. While the nature of the power exercised by the High Court is delineated in clause (1) of Articl