A remedy of appeal may not always be a bar in the exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution – Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (ARCIL) Vs. J.U.D. Cements Ltd. & Ors. – Meghalaya High Court
Hon’ble High Court held that coming to the maintainability of the instant Revision Application under Article 227 of the Constitution, it is correct that procedural appeal was available to the petitioner in assailing the impugned orders which has not been availed of, but rather interference is sought, by praying for the invocation of the powers of superintendence by this Court. It is a common refrain that, in cases where alternative remedy is available in terms of the CPC, Courts are normally reluctant to exercise supervisory jurisdiction, but it is also true that depending upon the peculiar facts of a case, a remedy of appeal may not always be a bar in the exercise of such powers. The instant case to the mind of the Court, is such a case, wherein, the manner of involvement of public money is clearly against public policy, and a secured creditor is being thwarted from taking steps for recovery of outstanding debts from the respondent No. 1, whose account has already been declared a non-performing asset. Article 227 of the Constitution, vests in the High Court the power to interfere in cases of erroneous assumption of jurisdiction or acting beyond the jurisdiction conferred and to correct a patent error, procedural or otherwise.
