Gujarat High Court: NCLT President Lacks Power to Alter Bench Jurisdiction

New Delhi, October 24, 2025 - In a definitive ruling with significant ramifications for India's corporate and insolvency litigation landscape, the Gujarat High Court has declared that the President of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) does not possess the administrative authority to alter the territorial jurisdiction of its Benches when transferring cases. The judgment, which quashes the transfer of several Essar Steel-related matters from the NCLT's Ahmedabad Bench to its Mumbai Bench, establishes a clear boundary between administrative convenience and statutory law, reinforcing the principle that jurisdiction is a creation of statute, not discretion.

Delivered by Justice Niral R. Mehta, the verdict provides crucial clarification on the scope of the NCLT President's powers under Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016. The court held that this provision is limited to transferring cases between benches within the same territorial jurisdiction and cannot be used to move a case from the jurisdiction of one state to another. This decision is poised to become a landmark precedent, shaping the procedural integrity of thousands of cases before the NCLT, the primary adjudicating authority for matters under the Companies Act and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

---

Background of the Dispute: The Essar Steel Connection

The legal challenge was initiated by ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited, the entity that acquired Essar Steel India Ltd. following one of the country's most protracted and high-profile insolvency resolutions. Post-acquisition, several residual disputes and applications related to the resolution process remained pending before the NCLT Ahmedabad Bench, which had the original territorial jurisdiction over the matter.

Citing administrative convenience, the NCLT President ordered the transfer of these cases to the Mumbai Bench. This move was promptly contested by ArcelorMittal, which filed a petition before the Gujarat High Court. The core of their argument was that the President, in an exercise of administrative power, had effectively rewritten the jurisdictional map laid out by Parliament. This, the petitioner contended, was a case of administrative overreach that undermined the statutory framework of the NCLT and raised concerns about potential forum shopping.

---

The Court's Rationale: Statutory Mandate Over Administrative Discretion

Justice Niral R. Mehta's judgment meticulously dissects the limits of administrative power within a quasi-judicial body. The court's observations provide a masterclass on statutory interpretation and the separation of powers.

1. Limited Scope of Rule 16(d): The High Court’s analysis centered on Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which empowers the President to transfer cases "from one Bench to other Bench." The court interpreted this to mean transfers between different benches that share the same overarching territorial jurisdiction (for example, between multiple benches within a single large city like Delhi or Mumbai), not between benches located in different states with distinct jurisdictions. Justice Mehta emphasized, "The President’s powers under Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 are confined to transfers within the same territorial jurisdiction."

2. Jurisdiction as a Creature of Statute: The ruling strongly affirmed that the territorial jurisdiction of NCLT Benches is explicitly defined by the Central Government through notifications issued under the Companies Act, 2013. This statutory basis means that jurisdiction cannot be altered, amended, or bypassed through a simple administrative order, regardless of the intention. "Allowing the President to alter jurisdiction would amount to rewriting the law, which only Parliament can do," the court observed, underscoring a fundamental constitutional principle.

3. Judicial Discipline and Propriety: In an important aside, the court also addressed the conduct of judicial forums. It cautioned that NCLT Benches should exhibit judicial fortitude and not recuse themselves from hearing cases merely due to the aggressive conduct of lawyers or litigants. This comment serves as a reminder of the need for judicial stability and resilience in the face of contentious, high-stakes litigation.

Based on this reasoning, the High Court quashed the transfer order and directed that the cases be restored to the NCLT Ahmedabad Bench for adjudication.

---

Wider Implications for Corporate and Insolvency Law

The judgment is far more than a procedural correction in a single case; it sends ripples across the entire corporate legal ecosystem.

• Curbing Forum Shopping: By ring-fencing territorial jurisdiction, the ruling significantly curtails the ability of litigants to seek transfers to benches perceived as more favourable. This ensures that cases are heard where they legally belong, promoting fairness and preventing strategic litigation tactics.
  
  
• Strengthening Certainty for Litigants: For companies engaged in litigation, jurisdictional certainty is paramount. This decision provides assurance that the forum for their dispute is determined by law and will not be subject to administrative whims, allowing for better legal strategy and resource allocation.
  
  
• Defining the NCLT President's Role: The judgment clarifies that the NCLT President’s role, while administratively crucial for managing caseloads and constituting benches, remains subordinate to the statutes governing the tribunal's functioning. It draws a bright line between administrative management and judicial authority.
  
  
• Reinforcing Judicial Review: The High Court's willingness to intervene and scrutinize the administrative actions of a major tribunal highlights the vital role of constitutional courts in maintaining checks and balances. It affirms that administrative orders of tribunals are not immune from judicial review, especially when they touch upon foundational issues like jurisdiction.

Reactions from the Legal Fraternity

The ruling has been met with widespread approval from corporate lawyers and insolvency professionals. Many view it as a necessary course correction that will inject greater discipline and predictability into NCLT proceedings. Proponents argue that it protects the sanctity of the IBC process, which relies on a stable and rule-based framework.

However, some critics have voiced concerns that the decision might unduly restrict the NCLT President's flexibility to manage docket congestion. They argue that in a system grappling with a heavy caseload, the ability to transfer cases for efficient disposal is a valuable tool. The High Court's ruling, they suggest, prioritizes jurisdictional rigidity over pragmatic case management.

---

Conclusion: A Landmark in Procedural Jurisprudence

The Gujarat High Court’s judgment is a powerful affirmation of a core legal tenet: procedure is the handmaiden of justice, and jurisdiction is the bedrock upon which the entire edifice of justice rests. By quashing the transfer of the Essar Steel-related cases, the court has not merely decided a single dispute but has articulated a principle of lasting importance. It establishes that while administrative efficiency is desirable, it cannot be achieved at the cost of statutory fidelity. This ruling will undoubtedly be cited for years to come as the definitive word on the limits of the NCLT President's powers, ensuring that the jurisdictional lines drawn by law remain clear, firm, and respected.