CAT Sidelines NCLT Seniority Battle: No Jurisdiction in Acting President Feud

In a swift jurisdictional knockout, the Central Administrative Tribunal's Principal Bench in New Delhi dismissed Original Application No. 1290/2026 filed by NCLT Technical Member Kaushalendra Kumar Singh . The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) and Hon’ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A) , ruled it lacked authority to intervene in the appointment of Bachu Venkat Balram Das as acting President of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) . Singh's claim hinged on his alleged seniority, but the tribunal shut the door before merits could be debated.

Sparks Fly Over Seniority: The NCLT Power Vacuum

The drama unfolded after the term of acting NCLT President Deep Chandra Joshi ended on March 16, 2026. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued Notification No. F. No. A-45011/534/2025-Ad.IV-MCA, directing Judicial Member Bachu Venkat Balram Das to step in as acting President under Section 415(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 for six months or until a regular appointee.

Singh, appointed Technical Member on October 1, 2021 (offer dated September 11, 2021), argued he was senior to Das, whose Judicial Member offer came on October 10, 2021. He sought to quash the notification, declare himself acting President as the "senior-most Member," and claimed the government's choice violated statutory and constitutional norms. Reports from legal circles note Singh first approached the Delhi High Court via Writ Petition (C) No. 3509/2026, securing a notice on March 18 before withdrawing on April 6 to pivot to the CAT—citing impact on his service conditions.

Applicant Strikes for Seniority, Respondents Raise Jurisdictional Wall

Singh's counsel, Sh. Karan Bharihoke , hammered home that NCLT Members hold civil posts under Union control. Appointments, service conditions, and the Ministry's oversight made the dispute CAT-eligible under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 . He leaned on precedents like Pradip Kumar v. Union of India (2012) 13 SCC 182 and A.K. Doshi v. CAT (2000) to argue Company Law Board Members were civil post holders, extending to NCLT.

Respondents fired back: Sh. Jalaj Agarwal (for Union of India) and Sh. Shivanshu Bhardwaj (for Das) contested jurisdiction outright. They invoked Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (WP(C) No. 1018/2021, November 19, 2025) and Union of India v. Shanker Raju (2008 DRJ 742), stressing NCLT's quasi-judicial independence. No notification under Section 14(2) AT Act covered NCLT, and posts weren't "civil posts" per Supreme Court tests from State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta (AIR 1967 SC 884).

Dissecting the Jurisdiction Puzzle: Quasi-Judicial Fortress

The bench zeroed in on Section 14 AT Act , limiting CAT to recruitment and service matters for All-India Services, civil posts, or notified bodies. Echoing Shanker Raju , it applied Kanak Chandra Dutta 's indicia: master-servant ties via appointment, control, dismissal rights, and remuneration. NCLT flipped the script—statutory creation under Section 408 Companies Act , independent functions, self-regulating procedures, judicial proceeding status, and High Court Judge-level qualifications.

The tribunal distinguished A.K. Doshi (Company Law Board, pre-NCLT) and Pradip Kumar (no jurisdiction debate). Post-2016 NCLT amendments via Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 reinforced autonomy, as upheld in Madras Bar Association . "The NCLT is a statutory body, not a department... expected to function independently," the order noted, deeming posts neither civil nor All-India Services .

Key Observations from the Bench

  • "The post of Technical Member and/or Judicial Member is neither a Civil Post nor the post belongs to All India service nor the matter in hand relates to a Civilian appointed to a defence service..."
  • "A civil post is distinguished... from a post connected with defence; it is a post on the civil as distinguished from the defence side of the administration..." (quoting Kanak Chandra Dutta )
  • "The NCLT is a creation of a statute. It is independent in its function and has powers to regulate its own procedure..."

Gavel Falls: OA Booted, Doors Open Elsewhere

The OA stands dismissed solely for want of jurisdiction—no costs imposed. Singh is free to approach "the appropriate forum," likely higher courts. This ruling fortifies NCLT's quasi-judicial insulation from CAT oversight, potentially streamlining service disputes to writ jurisdictions while spotlighting seniority norms under Section 415(1) Companies Act for future battles.

The decision underscores evolving tribunal autonomy amid ongoing Supreme Court scrutiny of reforms, leaving NCLT's leadership hierarchy intact—for now.