The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine the Gujarat High Court judgement which ruled that the National Company Law Tribunal cannot transfer a pending petition to another NCLT bench outside the state.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi agreed to examine the scope of the NCLT President’s power to transfer cases across NCLT benches in different states.
The controversy stems from Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which allows the NCLT President to “transfer any case from one Bench to another Bench when the circumstances warrant”.
The Gujarat High Court, in its recent order, held that this power is strictly intra-state.
The High Court said that the Tribunal President cannot “alter or extend” territorial jurisdiction established by the central government, meaning that cases cannot be moved from one state to another.
The top court “prima facie doubted” the stand and gave a hypothetical example that if a member must recuse at a location with on​The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine the Gujarat High Court judgement which ruled that the National Company Law Tribunal cannot transfer a pending petition to another NCLT bench outside the state.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi agreed to examine the scope of the NCLT President’s power to transfer cases across NCLT benches in different states.
The controversy stems from Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which allows the NCLT President to “transfer any case from one Bench to another Bench when the circumstances warrant”.
The Gujarat High Court, in its recent order, held that this power is strictly intra-state.
The High Court said that the Tribunal President cannot “alter or extend” territorial jurisdiction established by the central government, meaning that cases cannot be moved from one state to another.
The top court “prima facie doubted” the stand and gave a hypothetical example that if a member must recuse at a location with on ​Latest News [ SOBAN NEWS: International and National ]
