The Delhi High Court recently observed that it cannot invoke its writ jurisdiction to issue directions to dictate how the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) lists cases [Anuj Goyal Vs NCLT]..The Court made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by a homebuyer seeking the early listing of an application filed by him before the Principal Bench of the NCLT to transfer a case pending before the Chandigarh NCLT. Justice Tejas Karia noted that the homebuyer had not challenged any order passed by either the NCLT Principal Bench or the NCLT Chandigarh Bench. Instead, he was seeking directions from the High Court on how the tribunal should list and proceed with matters pending before it.“Such directions against a Tribunal cannot be issued by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction,” the Court said.The Court added that the constitution of a special bench and listing of matters during vacation fell within the exclusive prerogative of the President of the NCLT. It further observed that the homebuyer could have moved an appropriate application before the NCLT Principal Bench or mentioned the matter before the NCLT President for urgent listing, instead of moving the High Court. The Court added that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from invoking their extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in such matters when proceedings are pending before a competent tribunal. .The Court also imposed ₹25,000 as costs on the homebuyer, on finding that he had approached multiple forums seeking more or less identical reliefs."Such conduct amounts to forum shopping... By filing the present Petition, the Petitioner has abused the process of law. Accordingly, none of the reliefs sought by the Petitioner can be granted in the present Writ Petition," the Court held..The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by Anuj Goyal, a homebuyer in a project of Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited and a member of its Committee of Creditors (CoC).The matter concerned the insolvency resolution process initiated against Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited. The insolvency case was pending before the NCLT Chandigarh, which on June 9 reserved its verdict on the approval of a resolution plan. Goyal, however, sought a transfer of the matter from the NCLT Chandigarh to the Principal Bench of the NCLT in New Delhi. He filed this transfer plea before the NCLT Principal Bench.Goyal eventually moved the Delhi High Court as well, urging it to direct the NCLT Principal Bench to urgently hear his transfer application before the Chandigarh Bench of the NCLT pronounced its orders on the approval of the resolution plan.In the alternative, he sought a direction to the Chandigarh Bench to maintain status quo in the insolvency proceedings till the transfer plea was decided by the NCLT Principal Bench..The High Court refused to interfere. In its order, it also noted that Goyal had already filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal against the June 9 NCLT Chandigarh order.The Court said that he had therefore availed an alternative statutory remedy as well, in which substantially similar relief had been sought.“The present Writ Petition is wholly misconceived,” the Court concluded..Further, the Court was critical of the stage at which the transfer plea had been filed before the NCLT's Principal Bench. It noted that Goyal had participated in the proceedings before the Chandigarh Bench and moved the transfer application only at a highly belated stage, long after commencement of the insolvency proceedings.“In any event, the filing of the Transfer Petition appears to be an afterthought,” the Court said..The Court concluded that Goyal had abused the process of law by filing the writ petition. It dismissed the plea as devoid of merit and directed Goyal to pay ₹25,000 to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association within two weeks..Goyal was represented by Senior Advocate Pooja M Saigal, who appeared with Advocates Mahima Ahuja, Ankit Mittal and Isha Virmani..One set of respondents were represented by Advocates Atul V Sood, Arora Vishwas Kumar and Rohan Sood.Another respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar with Advocates Surjeet, Aditya Soni and Khan Ahmed Darvesh..[Read Judgment]
