NCLT New Delhi Rejects Plea To Shift Chennai Bench Case, Finds No Ground For Alleged Bias

On 20 May, the Principal Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at New Delhi dismissed a transfer application seeking shifting of a pending company petition from the NCLT Chennai Bench-II to another Bench, holding that vague and unsubstantiated allegations of bias cannot justify transfer of proceedings.

President Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal reiterated that courts cannot entertain such requests based on dissatisfaction with earlier outcomes, as doing so would encourage bench hunting. He held:

“The applicant had levelled bald allegations, which are totally unsubstantiated. Merely because the decision has gone against a party in one matter cannot be a ground to transfer another petition pending before the same Bench. Each case is decided upon its own merits. Allowing application on such a specious ground would encourage bench hunting by litigants.”

Suresh Kumar Jalan and others filed the transfer application, seeking transfer of a company petition along with all connected and pending applications from NCLT Chennai Bench-II to any other competent Bench of the Tribunal.

The applicants contended that the Chennai Bench-II had heard two company petitions together and had dismissed one of them on 18 September 2025 without granting a proper hearing.

They alleged that the Bench made adverse remarks during the proceedings and expressed apprehension that it would not fairly adjudicate the remaining petition. They also submitted that the dispute involved a listed public company and affected shareholder interests.

Rejecting these submissions, the Tribunal found no material to support any apprehension of bias. It held that the applicants raised bald and unsupported allegations that failed to displace the presumption of judicial impartiality.

The Bench further held that an adverse order in one proceeding cannot, by itself, justify transfer of another matter pending before the same Bench. It reiterated that each case must be decided on its own merits and that litigants cannot seek transfer merely because they remain dissatisfied with earlier outcomes. It also cautioned that allowing such requests would set a dangerous precedent and promote forum shopping.

Accordingly, the NCLT dismissed the transfer application for lack of merit.

For the Applicant: Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Advocate