JUDGMENT : Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, assailing the judgment dated 24.03.2025 passed in W.P(C)No.36441 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of maintainability. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants had challenged the orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench (Exts.P17, P18, P20 and P23) which virtually modified or reviewed prior NCLT orders (Exts.P10 and P11) and the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court (Ext.P9), by directing that the independent Chartered Accountant appointed pursuant to the Apex Court’s directions, report to and act under the supervision of the Administrator whose own appointment was under challenge before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ( NCLAT). He further submitted that the impugned orders were passed without hearing the appellants and allowed respondent No.25 - Administrator to make recommendations regarding his own salary and take over operational control of a Government Project vested contractually in the 5th appellant. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge primarily failed to consider that the appellants had raised valid contentions of procedural impropriety, bias and breach of natural justice. Secondly the NCLT has no power of review under the Companies Act, 2013 and cannot pass orders that in substance modify earlier orders under appeal. He added that the learned Single Judge also failed in considering the fact that the alternative remedy under Section 421 of the Companies Act does not bar the writ jurisdiction where the impugned orders are without jurisdiction or passed in violation of natural justice. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishnan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others [ (2021) 6 SCC 771 ] , in paragraph 27, the Apex Court has laid down the principles of law pointing out certain exceptions where the Court can entertain a writ petition. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishnan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others [ (2021) 6 SCC 771 ] , in paragraph 27, the Apex Court has laid down the principles of law pointing out certain exceptions where the Court can entertain a writ petition. The exceptions to the Rule of alternate remedy arises where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the writ petition on merits instead of relegating the appellants to avail the alternative remedy. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 10th respondent vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the orders have been passed by the NCLT in the interest of all concerned; whereas the writ petition has been filed with the malafide intention of covering up all the illegalities committed by the appellants and in an attempt to continue their actions. The appellants had earlier approached this Court in W.P(C)No.13448 of 2024 which was disposed of recording the submission that the application for modification has been withdrawn and directed the NCLT to reconsider the order dated 20.03.2024 after hearing the parties. The appellants thereafter moved a contempt case against the Administrator and independent Chartered Accountant alleging that by releasing salary and withdrawing other amounts, they have violated this Court’s direction. The contempt case was disposed of holding that there is nothing contemptuous and that the appellants should take up the matter before the NCLT. This aspect was not revealed by the appellants, which amounts to suppression of material facts. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. Admittedly the appellants had challenged the interim order passed by the NCLT, wherein certain disputed questions of fact have been raised. The learned Single Judge was right in holding that the appellants have made an attempt to suppress material facts. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. Admittedly the appellants had challenged the interim order passed by the NCLT, wherein certain disputed questions of fact have been raised. The learned Single Judge was right in holding that the appellants have made an attempt to suppress material facts. Moreover contention that the impugned orders amount to review of Exts.P10 and P11 cannot be found fault with since the Tribunal is vested with the discretion to pass necessary orders to ensure proper functioning of the Project till the company petition is decided. 9. The learned Single Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 420 of the Companies Act provides for an appeal to NCLAT against the order of NCLT which the appellants have not availed. However, since we are not entertaining the present appeal on the ground of alternative remedy, it would be appropriate to relegate the appellants to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act before the NCLAT within a period of 15 days from today. 10. In the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, the appellants are granted liberty to approach the NCLAT in appeal within a period of 15 days from today. If the appellants approach the Appellate Tribunal within the aforesaid period, the period of limitation prescribed to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall not come in the way of filing the appeal. The learned Appellate Tribunal shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. It is made clear that if the appeal is not filed within the afore said period, then the NCLAT may entertain the appeal subject to law of limitation and proceed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. With the afore said direction, the writ appeal stands finally disposed of.