Access to justice for far-flung litigants also an issue with Supreme Court: Madras High Court in plea on delay in setting up NCLAT Chennai

The Madras High Court on Monday issued notice in a PIL moved for the expeditious commencement of the southern bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai, in line with the Supreme Court's 2019 order in the Swiss Ribbons case (GV Mohan Kumar v. The Registrar and ors)..Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Naveen Kumar Murthi also pointed out before the Bench of Justices M Sathyanarayanan and P Rajamanickam that the NCLAT Bench is meant to cover the five southern states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana..Plea moved in Madras High Court over delay in setting up NCLAT Bench at Chennai.Observing that the Supreme Court's 2019 order had indicated that the concerned authorities were obliged to set up the circuit bench of the NCLAT within six months, the Court queried,."Central government has read it as six years?".The Bench added, "Subject to verification, suppose there is no extension (of the time to set up the circuit benches)... it appears to be per se contempt. Of course we cannot pass orders (since it is not a High Court order that has not been complied with) ... someone will have to move Supreme Court.".Additional Solicitor General R Sankaranarayanan assured the Court that he would obtain instructions in the matter if some time is given, and urged the Court to adjourn the matter to January. .He cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a possible reason for the delay. He submitted that the notification for setting up the Chennai Bench was issued in March 2020, following which efforts were made to find a location for the Bench. .Advocate Murthi told the Court that space was also stated to have been handed over to the Deputy Registrar for the Chennai Bench and that construction/renovation work was over. .Despite this, there has been no commencement in the functioning of the NCLAT Chennai, he argued for the petitioner..On access to justice for far-flung litigants.In the course of his submissions, Advocate Murthi raised concern over how not all clients in company matters are well-off. Small-time companies (from the southern states) may find it difficult to approach the NCLAT Bench at Delhi, he submitted..The submission prompted the Bench to peruse the Supreme Court's observations in the Swiss Ribbons case, wherein the top court had commented on the difficulties faced by litigants from far-flung states in accessing the NCLAT at Delhi..The High Court orally observed that this issue concerns not only the Tribunal, but also the Supreme Court. ."These observations would also apply to Supreme Court", the Bench remarked. .A reference was made to the PIL moved by Advocate V Vasanthakumar proposing the establishment of National Courts of Appeal, in lieu of a single Supreme Court at Delhi as a possible solution to these concerns. .ASG Sankaranarayanan weighed in that following similar concerns, a Bench of the National Green Tribunal was also set up for the southern zone. .The functioning of the Intellectual Properpety Appellate Board (IPAB) at Chennai was also briefly discussed, with the Bench orally observing that it is aware that directions had to be issued after no facilities were provided for the proper functioning of the Board..Another concern raised was over how the Presiding Officer of the IPAB, Justice Manmohan, was only hearing matters from Delhi and not coming down to Chennai..Whereas the High Court orally observed that now matters can be heard virutally (regardless of location), it also remarked, "We also thought a learned judge of this Court would be appointed ... not sure what happened.".All the same, apart from the Chairman, all other members of the IPAB Chennai have been appointed from the Tamil Nadu Bar, the Bench added..After hearing the parties, the High Court proceeded to issue notice in the matter and posted it for further hearing on January 28.