IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.34872 of 2025 Rai Sri Chinmaya …. Petitioner(s)

Srichandan Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Adv.

-versus-

Rai Sri Achyutananda …. Opposite Party(s)

Srichandan CORAM:

HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order ORDER No. 10.12.2025

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner, claiming to be a shareholder of the company in question, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Company Appeal (AT) No. 274 of 2025, whereby the NCLAT affirmed the order dated 19.08.2025 of the National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in CP (Companies Act) No. 55/CB/2023.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

4. On a consideration of the challenge laid, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable in light of the efficacious alternate statutory remedy provided under Section 423 of the Companies Act, 2013, which reads as under:

“423. Appeal to Supreme Court. —Any person aggrieved by any order of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the Supreme Court within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order of the Appellate Tribunal to him on any question of law arising out of such order:

Provided that the Supreme Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”

5. In view of the above, and having regard to the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised when an adequate alternate statutory remedy exists, save in exceptional circumstances as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks1,Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P2 and many more judgments wherein the Apex Court has fortified the legal position that alternative remedy is not a bar to the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court if the writ petition is filed for enforcement of fundamental rights; where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or when the vires of an Act is challenged. The petitioner, in the present case, has not Signature Not Verified

1 (1998) 8 SCC 1

discharged the burden of showing either a breach of audi alteram partem or any other principle of natural justice, a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction in the impugned order/proceedings, or a vires challenge to the parent enactment.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is unable to satisfy this Court on maintainability. After arguing for some time, he prays for permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the remedy under Section 423 of the Companies Act, 2013. In the alternative, he seeks liberty to approach the NCLAT by moving an appropriate application, alleging deviation/non-compliance in the implementation of the order dated 31.10.2025.

7. Considering the above request, and without entering upon the merits of the controversy, the Petitioner is granted liberty:

a. to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 423 of the Companies Act, 2013, within the period of limitation prescribed therein, and subject to law; or, in the alternative, b. to file an appropriate application before the learned NCLAT pointing out the specific grounds of alleged deviation or non-compliance with respect to its order dated 31.10.2025 in Company Appeal (AT) No. 274 of

2025; any such application, if filed, shall be considered and decided by the NCLAT in accordance with law.

8. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No opinion is expressed on the merits. All pending applications, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)

Judge Murmu