While dismissing a petition of a homebuyer who sought a direction to the NCLT, Principal Bench at New Delhi, for the urgent listing of a transfer application, the Delhi High Court has held that the High Courts ought to refrain from invoking their extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution where proceedings are pending before the competent Tribunal.

The High Court was considering a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking an order directing the disposal of the Petitioner’s urgent/early hearing application before any final order in any of the pending interlocutory applications was pronounced by NCLT in relation to a Company Petition.

The Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia held, “Such directions against a Tribunal cannot be issued by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It is well settled that High Courts ought ordinarily to refrain from invoking their extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution where proceedings are pending before the competent Tribunal”, it held.

Senior Advocate Pooja M. Saigal represented the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petition was filed by an allottee/homebuyer in the project, Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited (Corporate Debtor), who is a member of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) constituted in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor, presently pending in a Company Petition. Kone Elevators India Private Limited filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), and the NCLT, Chandigarh Bench passed an order directing commencement of the CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor. One Arvind Kumar was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The Disciplinary Committee of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) passed a disciplinary order against the erstwhile IRP, suspending his registration as an Insolvency Professional / Resolution Professional for two years.

The Insolvency Proceedings have been continuing, and a Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC. An application was filed seeking approval of the Resolution Plan. The Petitioner filed a Transfer Application (TA) before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Principal Bench at New Delhi, under Section 419 of the Companies Act, 2013, read with Rules 11 and 16(d) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, seeking transfer of the Insolvency Proceedings from NCLT, Chandigarh to NCLT, New Delhi Bench along with a prayer for an ex-parte ad-interim stay on the Insolvency Proceedings pending disposal of the Transfer Application. Orders were reserved in the Application for approval of the proposed Resolution Plan. The President, NCLT Principal Bench, recused from hearing the Transfer Application and the same was directed to be listed before NCLT, Court-III, New Delhi.

The Petitioner, vide an email addressed to the Registrar, NCLT Principal Bench, requested the constitution of a special bench for early hearing of the Transfer Application, raising the apprehension that if the Transfer Application was not heard and the Tribunal pronounced an order in the Application for approval of the Resolution Plan, the Transfer Application would become infructuous. The request of the Petitioner seeking an early hearing of the Transfer Application was not allowed as no bench was constituted that could adjudicate the Transfer Application during vacations. Hence, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that the first Respondent is a Tribunal presided over by its President, and the constitution of a special Bench, as well as the listing of matters during the vacation period, falls within the exclusive prerogative of the President. It was noticed that instead of mentioning the matter or moving an appropriate application before the President, the Petitioner approached the Court seeking directions.

The Bench further noted, “This Court has been apprised that the Petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 09.06.2026 passed by Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner has, therefore, availed of an alternative statutory remedy, wherein substantially similar relief is sought. It also remains open to the Petitioner to move an appropriate application before Respondent No. 1 seeking early hearing of the Transfer Petition or to mention the matter before the Hon’ble President of Respondent No. 1 for such urgent listing. Instead of availing the said remedies, the Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by way of the present Writ Petition, which is wholly misconceived.”

As per the Bench, the Writ Petition was filed seeking directions against the Tribunals and such conduct amounted to forum shopping, as the Petitioner had sought to approach multiple forums for substantially identical reliefs.

“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 Bench held while dismissing the Petititon.

The Bench concluded the matter by imposing costs of ₹25,000 upon the Petitioner in instituting multiple proceedings seeking substantially identical reliefs and invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Court without first availing the remedies available in law.

Cause Title: Anuj Goyal v. National Company Law Tribunal (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5146)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Pooja M. Saigal, Advocates Mahima Ahuja, Ankit Mittal, Isha Virmani

Respondent: Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar, Advocates Atul V. Sood, Arora Vishwas Kumar, Rohan Sood, Surjeet, Aditya Soni, Khan Ahmed Darvesh

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Tejas Karia

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.