The Central government has filed a plea before the Supreme Court challenging a Gujarat High Court ruling which held that the President of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) cannot administratively transfer cases from one Bench to another beyond territorial jurisdiction [Union of India Vs Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana issued notice in the matter today and sought the response of ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Private Limited, formerly Essar Steel India Limited.
The case concerns the scope of Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which empowers the NCLT President to “transfer any case from one Bench to other Bench when the circumstances so warrant.”
The Gujarat High Court had held that this power does not permit the NCLT President to transfer cases beyond the territorial jurisdiction of a particular Bench. It had, therefore, set aside administrative orders by which the NCLT President had transferred matters concerning ArcelorMittal from NCLT Ahmedabad to NCLT Mumbai.
The Centre has now argued before the Supreme Court that the High Court’s interpretation reads a territorial limitation into Rule 16(d), even though no such restriction exists in the Rule.
According to the Union government, the NCLT is “one Tribunal for whole of the country” and functions under a unified administrative framework. It has contended that Benches of the NCLT are created for administrative convenience and to provide access to the tribunal across India, and not to create rigid geographical barriers.
The plea states that Rule 16(d) is not confined to intra-State or intra-territorial transfers. Instead, it permits transfer from one Bench to another across NCLT sittings in India, when circumstances require such a course.
The Union government has also submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate the practical necessity behind the transfer orders. In the present case, two NCLT Benches at Ahmedabad had recused themselves from hearing the matters. The Centre says administrative intervention was, therefore, necessary to ensure that the Tribunal continued to function and to avoid a judicial vacuum.
The plea further states that if the High Court’s view is upheld, simultaneous recusals or vacancies at a particular Bench could bring adjudication to a standstill.
The underlying dispute arose from proceedings connected to Essar Steel/ ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel. A Bench of the NCLT Ahmedabad had recused from hearing the matter on January 9, 2024. Another bench, NCLT Ahmedabad Court II, also later recused in April that year.
Thereafter, the NCLT President transferred the cases to NCLT Mumbai through administrative orders dated June 6, 2024 and February 10, 2025.
ArcelorMittal challenged both the recusal and transfer orders before the Gujarat High Court.
Justice Niral R Mehta quashed the recusal orders as well as the NCLT President's transfer orders. The High Court held that the NCLT President had no administrative power to alter or extend the territorial jurisdiction of any Bench.
Later, a Division Bench of the High Court in February 2026 directed the Centre to approach Supreme Court with its appeal challenging Justice Mehta's ruling as a similar issue is pending before the top court.
The Union of India has, therefore, now urged the Supreme Court in the matter.
In January 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to examine the same issue on a plea filed by Anita Rayapatti against the same order.
Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel was represented by Advocate Ruby Singh Ahuja, Senior Partner at Karanjawala & Co.