Article 227 of the Constitution - The jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate; it allows High Courts to ensure subordinate courts and tribunals act within their authority, but does not permit them to re-examine factual or legal issues as an appellate court. The scope is limited to keeping tribunals within their jurisdiction and correcting jurisdictional errors. Sources: johnson lifts pvt ltd vs tracks & towers infratech pvt ltd - 2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 1244 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 1244, MANOJ DAGA vs SANJAY NILKANTH DERKAR - Supreme Court, URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE TRUSTEE LIMITED vs OZONE PROPEX PRIVATE LIMITED - Karnataka, INDDelhi_2022_DHC_003636_2022_DHC_003636, INDDelhi_2022_DHC_003636_2022_DHC_3636
NCLT and NCLAT - These tribunals are established under the Companies Act, 2013, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Their jurisdiction pertains to insolvency resolution and related matters. Orders passed by NCLT are appealable to NCLAT under Section 61 of the IBC, 2016. They are not courts under the general jurisdiction of the High Court but are statutory tribunals with specific powers. Sources: RCI Industries and Technologies Ltd. vs Adjudicating Authority (NCLT-III) - Delhi (2022), URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE TRUSTEE LIMITED vs OZONE PROPEX PRIVATE LIMITED - Karnataka_NCLAT00000000382
High Court's Role - When exercising supervisory powers under Article 227, the High Court must act within limited parameters, avoiding functions of an appellate tribunal. It cannot substitute its judgment for that of the tribunal or correct factual findings. The power is meant to prevent jurisdictional overreach and ensure proper functioning. Sources: URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE TRUSTEE LIMITED vs OZONE PROPEX PRIVATE LIMITED - Karnataka_HC_KAHC010273892019, INDDelhi_2022_DHC_003636_2022_DHC_003636
In Insolvency Cases - The courts have clarified that invoking Article 227 to interfere with insolvency proceedings (like CIRP) is generally unwarranted unless there is a clear jurisdictional error. Courts have dismissed petitions under Article 227 when the challenge was to procedural or substantive issues better addressed by the NCLT or NCLAT. Sources: MANOJ DAGA vs SANJAY NILKANTH DERKAR - Supreme Court, Committee of Creditors of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited VS Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited - Supreme Court, Committee of Creditors of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited VS Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited - Supreme Court
Supervisory vs. Appellate Power - The key insight is that Article 227 confers supervisory power, not appellate authority. It is used sparingly, primarily to correct jurisdictional errors or to prevent misuse of authority by tribunals, but not to re-assess merits or factual findings. Sources: johnson lifts pvt ltd vs tracks & towers infratech pvt ltd - 2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 1244 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 1244, INDDelhi_2022_DHC_003636_2022_DHC_3636
Analysis and Conclusion:The consensus across the sources is that NCLT and NCLAT operate within their statutory jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Companies Acts. The High Court's power under Article 227 is limited to supervisory oversight, ensuring tribunals do not exceed their jurisdiction, and should not be invoked to re-examine factual or substantive issues. Interference under Article 227 is appropriate only in exceptional cases of jurisdictional error, not for merits or procedural disputes in insolvency cases. This delineation preserves the independence of tribunals and maintains the proper hierarchy of judicial review.
