Delhi High Court on Jurisdiction in NCLT Case Listings
The Delhi High Court has recently reinforced the boundaries of its writ jurisdiction, declining to issue directives to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) regarding the listing of cases. This decision came in response to a petition by Anuj Goyal, a homebuyer involved in the insolvency proceedings of Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, who sought an expedited listing of his application for transferring a case from the NCLT Chandigarh to the Principal Bench in New Delhi.
Case Background and Court’s Observation
Justice Tejas Karia, presiding over the matter, emphasized that the homebuyer did not contest any specific order from the NCLT but was instead requesting the High Court to influence the tribunal’s case management practices. The court succinctly stated that such directions fall outside the High Court’s authority under its writ jurisdiction.
The judgment underscored that the scheduling and constitution of special benches at the NCLT during vacation periods remain the exclusive domain of the NCLT President. It further advised that the petitioner could have pursued urgent listing through appropriate channels at the NCLT itself, rather than approaching the High Court.
Judicial Restraint and Forum Shopping
The Court highlighted the importance of judicial restraint, observing that High Courts should typically avoid exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution when competent tribunals are already handling the proceedings. Justice Karia also imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioner, attributing it to what the Court perceived as an attempt at forum shopping.
“This conduct amounts to forum shopping… By filing the present petition, the petitioner has abused the process of law,” the Court remarked, denying all reliefs sought by Goyal. The petitioner had already filed an appeal with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal against the NCLT Chandigarh’s order from June 9, further rendering the High Court intervention redundant.
More Read
Chronology and Court’s Criticism
The case involved insolvency resolution for Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, pending at the NCLT Chandigarh, which had reserved its decision on the resolution plan. Goyal’s request for transfer came after extensive participation in the proceedings and was viewed by the court as a belated action. “The filing of the transfer petition appears to be an afterthought,” the Court noted, concluding the petition was meritless.
The High Court directed Goyal to pay the imposed costs to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association within two weeks. Senior Advocate Pooja M. Saigal, along with Advocates Mahima Ahuja, Ankit Mittal, and Isha Virmani, represented Goyal. Respondents were represented by Advocates Atul V. Sood, Arora Vishwas Kumar, Rohan Sood, and Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar with his team.
