Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed by High Court Bar Association, Indore, seeking the establishment of a permanent bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Indore which is technically established in January 2017, but no regular full-time members have been posted there to date, a Division Bench of Vivek Rusia and Gajendra Singh, JJ., sought an explanation from the respondents as to “why atleast two members at NCLT Delhi or NCLT Mumbai are not being posted at NCLT Bench Indore, permanently.”
Presently, the Division Bench of NCLT, Ahmedabad, has been taking up matters of the Indore Bench through virtual court proceedings in the second half of the day, as an interim arrangement. The petitioner filed an interlocutory application urging the Court to issue appropriate directions to the respondents to make the NCLT Indore Bench fully functional and independent.
The petitioner placed status report of all NCLT benches as on 07-03-2025, before the Court and submitted that at NCLT Principal Bench, Delhi, six Division Benches are functioning, but Division Bench No. 6 has no courtroom since 2019, at NCLT Kolkata, Shri Cheekati Radha Krishna (Judicial Member) does not have a courtroom and at NCLT Mumbai seven permanent Division Benches are functioning, but Division Bench No. 7 lacks a courtroom. It was contended that the members who presently do not have a courtroom in their respective locations may be posted at NCLT Indore to make it fully operational.
The Court noted “it is correct that at least two members who have no court room can be posted at NCLT Bench at Indore.” The Court sought an explanation from respondents as to why at least two members from NCLT Delhi or Mumbai, who are currently not allotted a courtroom, are not being posted at NCLT Indore on a permanent basis. The Court remarked that if a satisfactory reply is not furnished, it may be constrained to pass a judicial order or writ and the matter on 13-05-2025.
[High Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India, W.P. No. 3929 of 2017, Decided on 17-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Vijayesh Atre and Ms. Aarya Chhangan, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, Government Advocate, Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 and 5
Shri Himanshu Joshi, Deputy Solicitor General, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Union of India