Directions To NCLT For Urgent Listing Of Plea Cannot Be Issued In Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently refused to issue directions to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for urgent listing of a homebuyer's transfer plea in an ongoing insolvency proceeding.

The court observed that such directions cannot be issued in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

A vacation bench of Justice Tejas Karia dismissed a petition filed by homebuyer Anuj Goyal and imposed costs of ₹25,000, payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks' Association within two weeks.

“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 ruled.

The case arose from the insolvency proceedings of Chandigarh Overseas Pvt Ltd. Goyal, a homebuyer and member of the committee of creditors, sought transfer of the proceedings from the NCLT Chandigarh bench to the NCLT Principal Bench in New Delhi.

He filed the transfer plea on June 8, 2026. The following day, the Chandigarh bench reserved orders on an application seeking approval of the resolution plan.

The transfer plea was later adjourned to July 17, 2026. Goyal then approached the High Court seeking urgent hearing of the transfer plea. Alternatively, he sought a direction restraining the Chandigarh bench from proceeding further in the insolvency matter until the transfer plea was considered.

The court noted that Goyal had not challenged any order passed by the NCLT. Instead, he was seeking directions regarding listing and hearing of the transfer plea.

The court also recorded that Goyal had already filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal against the June 9, 2026 order. It observed that he could seek urgent listing before the President of the NCLT or move an application for early hearing of the transfer plea.

“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.”, it observed.

The court further observed that the transfer plea appeared to be an afterthought. It noted that Goyal had participated in the proceedings before the Chandigarh bench and moved the transfer plea long after commencement of the insolvency process.

“In any event, the filing of the Transfer Petition appears to be an afterthought, particularly since the Petitioner participated in the proceedings before Respondent No. 2 and, thereafter, instituted the Transfer Petition at a highly belated stage, long after commencement of the Insolvency Proceedings.”

The court held that approaching multiple forums for substantially identical reliefs amounted to forum shopping.

“Such conduct amounts to forum shopping, as the Petitioner has sought to approach multiple forums for substantially identical reliefs.”

Holding that the petition was an abuse of the process of law and devoid of merit, the court dismissed it with costs.