DAVIS KOOTTALA VARKEY & ORS. v. SAMSON T. GEORGE & ORS.
Judicial discipline requires the High Court to refrain from entertaining a challenge to an order of the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 when the aggrieved person can appeal under section 61 of the Code.
By CA Nikhil Gupta · Reviewed against the retained judgment 2026-10-12
The High Court of Kerala had entertained a writ petition against an NCLT order passed during liquidation, issued notice and passed an interim order. The Supreme Court held that, because section 61 of the Code gives a broad right of appeal to any person aggrieved, orders under the Code must be challenged within its framework, set aside the High Court's order and left the respondents to file an appeal within 15 days.
What happened
The appeal arose from the Kerala High Court's order of 21 April 2026, by which a writ petition against an NCLT order passed during liquidation proceedings was entertained, notice was issued and an interim order was passed. On 26 May 2026 the Supreme Court, entertaining the appeal, had issued notice and stayed the High Court's order and further proceedings in O.P.C. No. 295 of 2026. The appellants argued that powers under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be whittled down by statute, but where a statute frames a mechanism to challenge orders, judicial discipline requires that the challenge be made within the statutory framework, as held in Committee of Creditors of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. v. Farooq Ali Khan.
Questions before the court
- Should the High Court entertain a writ petition against an NCLT order under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 when an appeal lies under the Code?
Why the court ruled this way
The Court found substance in the submission. Section 61 of the Code gives a right of appeal in broad terms to any person aggrieved by an order of the adjudicating authority under Part II, and uses the word order without specifying its nature. In those circumstances, judicial discipline requires the High Court to refrain from entertaining a challenge to the order of the adjudicating authority or NCLT under the Code, particularly when the aggrieved person can raise grievances in appeal (paragraph 6). The respondents' counsel pointed out that an appeal under the Code must be filed within a period not extendable beyond 45 days, which had expired (paragraph 8).
Controlling point
A writ petition against an NCLT order under the IBC should be dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy, because section 61 of the Code provides an appeal to the NCLAT.
Order and next steps
The High Court's order of 21 April 2026 was set aside and the writ petition dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, with liberty to the writ petitioners to take recourse to the appropriate remedy under the Code. If an appeal was filed before the NCLAT within 15 days from 5 August 2026, along with an application under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking exclusion of the time spent before the High Court and the Supreme Court, it was to be given due consideration in accordance with law. The appeal and pending applications were disposed of.
Practical implications
A person aggrieved by an NCLT order in liquidation or other proceedings under the Code should file the statutory appeal under section 61 within the limitation period instead of a writ petition, and may seek exclusion of time spent in wrongly pursuing another forum under section 14 of the Limitation Act, as this order contemplated.
Limits of this ruling
- The Court allowed the 15-day liberty on the facts of the case; it did not decide that time spent in a writ proceeding is always excluded, only that the application was to be considered in accordance with law.
Law and judgment source
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, section 61
- Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227
- Limitation Act, 1963, section 14
The linked PDF is a complete public court-copy document. The official court portal is provided for independent verification; a stable judgment-specific official link was not independently established.
Source checked: 2026-10-12 · Judgment paragraphs: paragraphs 3–10 · Later case history: not verified. Verify appeals, stays and subsequent orders before reliance.
This page is informational. Verify the current official court record, subsequent history and applicable law, and obtain professional advice for a specific matter.