Judicial Discipline Requires HCs To Refrain From Entertaining Writs Against NCLT Orders: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that while the powers of high courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed by statute, judicial discipline requires that when a statute provides a specific mechanism to challenge an order, the aggrieved party must ordinarily follow that statutory route instead of filing a writ petition.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi made the observation while setting aside a Kerala High Court order that had entertained a writ petition challenging an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) during liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the April 21, 2026 order of the Kerala High Court, by which it had entertained the writ petition against the NCLT order, issued notice and passed an interim order.

The Supreme Court had, on May 26, 2026, stayed the high court's order.

What remedy does the IBC provide against NCLT orders?

The appellant's counsel argued that orders passed in proceedings under the IBC must be challenged within the framework of the Code and not through a writ petition.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's earlier decisions in Committee of Creditors of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and Others (2024) and Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. v. Farooq Ali Khan (2025).

Finding substance in the submission, the Bench pointed out that Section 61 of the IBC provides a right of appeal to any "person aggrieved" by an order of the adjudicating authority under Part II of the Code.

Court noted that the right of appeal has been provided in broad terms to any "person aggrieved" by the order. Further, the provision uses the word "order" without specifying the nature of the order that can be challenged.

"In such circumstances, the judicial discipline would require the high court to refrain itself from entertaining a challenge to the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT under the provisions of the Code, particularly when the aggrieved person can raise his grievances in the appeal," the Bench said.

SC dismisses writ petition, allows remedy under IBC

The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the Kerala High Court's April 21 order and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.

However, court gave the writ petitioners liberty to pursue an appropriate legal remedy under the IBC.

During the hearing, counsel for the respondents submitted that an appeal under the IBC has to be filed within a specified period and that the period cannot be extended beyond 45 days. Since that period had already expired, the counsel requested the Supreme Court to permit the respondents to file an appeal along with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Bench accepted the request and said that if an appeal is filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) within 15 days from August 5, 2026, along with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act seeking exclusion of the period during which the proceedings remained pending before the high court and the Supreme Court, the application should be considered in accordance with law.

Case Title: Davis Koottala Varkey & Ors Vs Samson T George & Ors

Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi

Date of Judgment: August 5, 2026