CAT Delhi Dismisses NCLT Technical Member's Plea Against Appointment Of B.V. B. Das As Acting President

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at Delhi on Wednesday dismissed a plea by NCLT Technical Member Kaushalendra Kumar Singh challenging the Center's notification appointing Bachu Venkat Balram Das as the acting President of the tribunal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

A bench of Judicial Member R.N. Singh and Administrative Member B. Anand observed, "The post of Technical Member and/or Judicial Member is neither a Civil Post nor the post belongs to All India service nor the matter in hand relates to a Civilian appointed to adefence service in connection with the provisions of Section 14(a) or (b). Furthermore, the NCLT is not the institution/authority notified by the Central Government as required under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985."

Singh was offered an appointment as a Technical Member of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on September 11, 2021, and assumed office on October 1, 2021 for a period of five years. Subsequently, on October 10, 2021, an offer of appointment as a Judicial Member was given to Das.

Upon completion of the term of the then acting President on March 16, 2026, the senior-most Judicial Member was to act as President in terms of Section 415(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.

On March 16, 2026, a notification was issued treating Das as the senior-most Judicial Member and directing him to act as President of the NCLT for a period of six months from March 17, 2026, or until a regular President was appointed.

Aggrieved by this notification, Singh initially approached the Delhi High Court. The writ petition was later withdrawn on April 6, 2026, to enable him to avail himself of an alternative remedy, following which he filed the present application before the CAT.

Singh contended that he was senior to Das and ought to have been appointed as the acting President. The respondents opposed the plea, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, the Tribunal noted that the NCLT is a statutory body and not a department or wing of the Union Government. It also observed that the NCLT has not been notified as an authority under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The bench further noted, “In the present case also, the NCLT is a creation of a statute. It is dependent in its function and has powers to regulate its own "procedure, and the proceedings before it are deemed to be judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings, etc."

Accordingly, the tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter and dismissed the application, while granting liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate forum.