JUDGMENT : Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. This intra court appeal is against the order dated 26.9.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.30895 of 2017, which is an interim order passed in an application filed by respondents 1 to 9 herein. 2. The writ petition alleged that the application as filed by the three appellants before the National Company Law Tribunal (“the NCLT” for short) Chennai Bench which exercises jurisdiction over Kerala as well, was not maintainable. On this application being made to this Court, the interim order, which is appealed against, was passed. However, the proceedings before the NCLT were not otherwise disturbed. This has resulted in a peculiar situation. 3. It appears that the 11th respondent herein is a Public Company limited by guarantee. All the parties in this proceeding, except respondent Nos.17, 18 and 19, are members or claim to be members of the said company. The three appellants complaining oppression and mismanagement, filed applications before the NCLT, Chennai Bench. Among other reliefs, they sought for an order restraining the directors from transferring any immovable property of the company to respondent Nos.17, 18 and 19 herein and also for restraining the directors from expelling the appellants from the membership of the company. Before the NCLT, the company, the managing director and four other directors were made parties. The NCLT by order dated 4.7.2017 in Company Petition No.29 of 2017, passed an interim order firstly restraining the directors/the respondents therein, from transferring any property. They then stayed the notice dated 19.5.2017 seeking to expel the appellants from the membership of the company. It is not in dispute that before the NCLT, the company, the managing director and four directors appeared and had filed their counter affidavits and were contesting the matter on merits. Notwithstanding the interim order of stay granted by NCLT, as the petitioners before the NCLT were expelled from the membership, contempt proceedings were initiated and are pending before the NCLT. 4. It now appears that the writ petitioners, who also claim to be directors of the company, but not made parties before the NCLT, being aware of the proceedings as before the NCLT, filed the writ petition and challenged the interim order as passed by the NCLT and based thereon the learned single Judge has granted interim relief as noted above. 5. 5. We have heard the appellants as well as the respondents and have considered the matter. In our view, as the proceedings before the NCLT are pending and as the NCLT has assumed jurisdiction in the matter, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it would only be just and proper that respondents 1 to 9 herein who were the nine writ petitioners, approach the NCLT and raise their grievance. They are at liberty to raise the issue of jurisdiction as well, if they are so advised. But surely the orders of the NCLT cannot be assailed in this indirect manner. Let it be noted that under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 against any order of NCLT, an appeal lies to National Companies Appellate Tribunal. In such situation, we are of the view that the learned single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition nor passed the interim order. We accordingly vacate the interim order and dismiss the writ petition with liberty to the parties to move the NCLT in the matter for whatever relief they may seek. This appeal is accordingly allowed.