Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Seeking NCLT Listing; Imposes ₹25,000 Costs For Forum Shopping

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has held that litigants cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution to dictate or regulate the listing of matters before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Dismissing a petition that sought a direction to the NCLT for an expedited listing, the Court ruled that the scheduling and management of cases fall entirely within the administrative prerogative of the Tribunal's President.

The single-judge bench of Justice Tejas Karia, in the case titled Anuj Goyal v. National Company Law Tribunal, strongly condemned the practice of approaching multiple judicial forums for parallel reliefs, terming it a blatant abuse of the process of law.

Background of the Dispute
The petitioner, a homebuyer involved in the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of M/s Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, had moved the High Court seeking directions to regulate proceedings before the NCLT Chandigarh Bench. Concurrently, the petitioner had also filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) challenging an order passed by the NCLT in the same insolvency proceedings. Furthermore, after participating extensively in the hearing before the Chandigarh Bench—where the verdict on the approval of the resolution plan had already been reserved—the petitioner sought to transfer the matter to the NCLT Principal Bench in New Delhi.

High Court’s Findings on Writ Jurisdiction and Transfer
The High Court observed that a writ petition cannot be sustained to interfere with the daily administrative and listing procedures of a specialized statutory tribunal. Justice Karia emphasized that the constitution of benches, scheduling of vacation sittings, and prioritization of urgent listings are governed by internal rules and are the exclusive domain of the NCLT President. The Court noted that if a litigant desires an early or urgent hearing, the legally sanctioned remedy is to file an urgency application directly before the concerned tribunal or mention the matter before its President, rather than knocking on the doors of the High Court.

Addressing the prayer for transferring the case to the Principal Bench, the Court pointed out that the application was filed at a belated stage. The Bench observed that seeking a transfer after a tribunal has already reserved its final judgment appears to be an "afterthought" designed primarily to stall or delay the final outcome of the insolvency proceedings.

Strictures and Penalty for Forum Shopping
The Court took a grim view of the petitioner’s simultaneous recourse to both the NCLAT and the High Court for overlapping reliefs. Labeling the strategy as classic "forum shopping," the Court stated that such litigation tactics create unnecessary backlogs and waste precious judicial time.

Consequently, while dismissing the writ petition, the High Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹25,000 on the petitioner. The Court directed that the cost amount be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association within a stipulated timeframe.

Discription: This ruling centers on the limits of a High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which is the extraordinary power to supervise lower courts and enforce rights, but cannot be used to interfere with a tribunal's internal administrative prerogative—the exclusive authority of the NCLT President to manage rosters, benches, and daily case listings. The Court strictly penalized forum shopping, an abuse of process where a litigant approaches multiple judicial bodies simultaneously hoping for a favorable outcome or a tactical delay. Finally, the dispute arose out of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), the legally mandated time-bound mechanism under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) used to restructure a defaulting company and resolve its outstanding debts.