Supreme Court transfers case from NCLAT Chennai to NCLAT Delhi after judicial member claims interference by retired HC judge

The Supreme Court on Friday transferred commercial dispute pending before the Chennai bench of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to Principal Bench in Delhi after a judicial member of the Chennai Bench alleged that he was approached by a retired High Court judge to favour one of the parties to the case..The Supreme Court bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi requested the NCLAT President to list the appeal before his bench in Delhi and decide the same after notice to the contesting party at the earliest. The apex court further said that the Chennai judicial member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma's allegation would be looked into on the administrative side.The top court said that the issue involved was of vital public importance and the competent authority must have examined the available material and taken necessary steps as required. "In any case, all these issues can be effectively dealt with by the CJI on administrative side. We deem it appropriate to treat this WP as a representation bringing record vital information for consideration by the CJI. Let the law take its own course," the Court said..In August, Justice Sharma had disclosed in open court that one of the litigating parties had attempted to approach him through a retired High Court judge to secure a favourable order.Justice Sharma is reported to have referred to a message that he had received on his mobile phone and showed it to the lawyers involved in the case before recusing from the case..The proceedings concerned an appeal challenging an order of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Hyderabad admitting a company KLSR Infratech Limited into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on a plea moved by AS Met Corp Private Limited.The appeal against the NCLT Hyderabad decision was heard by a two-member bench of NCLAT Chennai on June 18 and reserved for orders. However, since Justice Sharma recused on August 13, the decision on appeal could not be pronounced.AS Met Corp Private Limited, which has accused KLSR Infratech Limited of failing to make payments to it, had now moved the Supreme Court for a criminal investigation into the recusal. The Court, however, chose to deal with the matter on administrative side..In 2024 too, Justice Sharma had recused from hearing matters pertaining to the CIRP of Byju's as it was initiated on a plea filed by Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), for whom he had previously appeared as a lawyer in many cases.In November 2024, the same member had recused from a different matter involving Jeppiar Cements after recording in an order that he had been approached by his “real brother” with a request to reserve the case for orders..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.