ORDER

(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY M.DURAISWAMY, J.)

Challenging the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-II, Chennai, made in I.A.(IBC)/460/CHE/2021 in IBA/1099/2019, the petitioner has filed the above Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2.At the outset, Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, learned senior counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent raised objections with regard to the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition for the reason that as per Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the petitioner has got remedy only before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

2.1.In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel relied upon 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 authority, and CLAT (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 IBC, 2016 and the orders of the CLAT N are amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court CLAT 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 High Court in entertaining the writ CLAT 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 Article 226, the jurisdiction of the High Court for the exercise of such power, is spelt out in both clauses (1) and (2) of Article 226.

14.Traditionally, the jurisdiction