JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the NCLT'). The NCLT while passing the order has exercised the power to initiate proceedings namely Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtors-petitioners as provided under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IBC, 2016'). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Jeetam Kumar Saini submitted that petition filed by respondent No.3 i.e. M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited is frivolous, vexatious and violative of guidelines, issued for passing such an order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court Below has failed to take into account that proper service of notice was not effected under Section 8(1) of the IBC, 2016 on the corporate debtors and on the Director-petitioner. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the address of the petitioners was changed and the changed address was duly communicated by the petitioners and same was also available on the website of M/s R.S. Motors Private Limited and yet without considering the issue of service on the petitioners, the impugned order has been passed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further made submission that the NCLT ought to have considered that the statutory provisions provided under the IBC, 2016 are complied with and the extreme step of appointing Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) should not have been passed in a casual manner. 6. This Court, asked the learned counsel for the petitioners to satisfy availability of writ jurisdiction of this Court for challenging the order passed by the NCLT, Jaipur. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though there is an appeal provided under Section 61 of the IBC, 2016, however the Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta & Anr., (1961) AIR SC 372 has observed that existence of alternative remedy is not always a sufficient reason for refusing a party to quick relief by a writ or order prohibiting an authority acting without jurisdiction from continuing such action. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the order is against principle of natural justice, the petitioners have rightly approached this Court for protection of their fundamental as well as legal rights. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the order is against principle of natural justice, the petitioners have rightly approached this Court for protection of their fundamental as well as legal rights. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 10. This Court finds that Section 61 of the IBC, 2016 specifically provides that if any person is aggrieved by order of Adjudicating Authority, he may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioners cannot be allowed to be by passed and whatever grievances are raised before this Court, the same can always be raised by the petitioners before the Appellate Forum. 11. This Court further finds that the issue in respect of proper service being effected on the petitioners or not, cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction and the Appellate Authority which is empowered to look into correctness of the order and the procedure followed by Company Law Tribunal, can look into and appreciate by considering the entire facts. 12. This Court, in view of availability of statutory, alternative remedy to the petitioners, is not inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is not entertained and the same is dismissed.