The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Wednesday held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) president has powers to transfer cases across benches in various territorial jurisdictions [Kamalesh v. Praveen]
A three-member Bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey held that the NCLT president can transfer proceedings from one bench to another where the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) requires such a transfer.
“The power of president NCLT is not restricted nor clouded to any territorial location,” the appellate tribunal said.
The NCLAT was dealing with insolvency proceedings against Kamlesh Rani Singla, a suspended director and personal guarantor of Laxmi Pipes Limited. The corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Laxmi Pipes was already pending before NCLT Chandigarh. However, proceedings under Section 95 of the IBC against Singla were initiated before NCLT in New Delhi. Singla sought transfer of the personal guarantor proceedings to Chandigarh.
The NCLT president rejected her transfer plea in December 2025. The decision relied on an October 2025 judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited v. National Company Law Tribunal & Ors. The High Court had held that Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules did not empower the NCLT president to transfer a case beyond the territorial jurisdiction of a particular bench. It said that the president’s authority was confined to benches falling within the same territorial limits.
This decision is currently under challenge before the Supreme Court.
The NCLAT disagreed with this interpretation of the High Court. It held that Rule 16(d), read with Section 60(2) of the IBC and Rule 2(7) of the NCLT Rules, gives the president sufficient power to transfer a case from one bench to another. The Appellate Tribunal said that restricting that power to the same territorial jurisdiction could create “anomalous situations”.
The NCLAT also stressed that Section 60(2) of the IBC requires insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor to be filed before the same NCLT where the CIRP or liquidation of the corporate debtor is pending. It said that the provision is intended to consolidate proceedings and avoid conflicting decisions.
In this case, the Tribunal held that NCLT New Delhi lacked territorial as well as inherent jurisdiction to continue the Section 95 proceedings against Singla. The NCLAT also said that the personal guarantor proceedings should have been rejected as non-maintainable at the admission stage itself and the creditor should have been asked to approach NCLT Chandigarh instead.
The Appellate Tribunal consequently set aside the NCLT president’s order. It also quashed the proceedings pending before NCLT New Delhi. The creditor was granted liberty to initiate proceedings before the NCLT having appropriate jurisdiction.
The appellant was represented by advocates Pankaj Garg and Yaksh Garg.
Resolution Professional Gautam Singhal was represented by advocate Rajat Chaudhary.
[Read Judgment]