In the case of Sulochana Gupta & Ors. V. RBG Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., the Division Bench of Hon'ble Justices S Manikumar and Shaji P Chaly decided that the order issued by NCLT cannot be challenged using the writ jurisdiction provided for in Article 226 of the Constitution.
The company petitions were still ongoing before the NCLT, according to the writ petition's facts. The NCLT referred to the requests in the company petitions in the impugned order itself and continued the matter for the I.A. hearing until 7.8.2020. The petitioners' knowledgeable attorney has argued that appealing to the NCLT was the right line of action. According to the argument, the current pandemic scenario in the nation makes such a course of action impossible, and the petitioners were unable to go to Delhi to file the appeal because of the travel restrictions and the mounting number of patients there.
In the instant case titled Sulochana Gupta & Ors. V. RBG Enterprises Pvt. Ltd the issue raised for clarification before the High Court was:
Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable or not?
With regard to this issue, "Giving due consideration to the facts of this case and the decisions cited supra, we are of the opinion that the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable on the ground that there is an alternative remedy," the Hon'ble Court stated after reviewing a catena of decisions. Only Article 227 of the Indian Constitution, not Article 226 of the Constitution, allows for judicial orders of the Court or Tribunal to be challenged.
It was stated that because administrative directives issued by the State do not fall under the purview of superintendence and control under the power of Article 227 of the Indian Constitution, they may be challenged through a writ petition under Article 226 of that document.
The Honorable Court overturned the Single bench's decision that provided a party challenging an order made by the NCLT, Kochi bench with some limited relief.
The Court categorically stated that,
"As stated above, writ petitioners/respondents 1 & 2 herein have not chosen to approach the NCLT under the said rule”. Having directed the writ petitioners/respondents to avail a right of appeal, before NCLT, writ court ought not to have entertained the writ petition for the reason that, it would be amounting to allowing the writ petitioners/respondents to prosecute their challenge to the interim order passed in I.A. No.83/2020 in C.P. No.114/KOB/2019 in two different forums; one before NCLT, New Delhi and by way of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the foregoing paragraphs, we have clearly held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the order of the Tribunal, is not maintainable in law.”