Supreme Court Issues Notice In Plea Challenging HC Order Barring Registered Office Shift Pending NCLAT Appeals
Kirit Singhania
22 May 2026 3:38 PM IST
On Friday, 22 May, the Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd, a corporate debtor, challenging the Calcutta High Court judgment dated 15 May 2026. The judgement had held that the company could not shift its registered office from Kolkata to Mumbai while appeals against its insolvency resolution plan remained pending before the NCLAT.
A Division Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, while issuing notice, declined to grant any interim direction reversing the shifting of the registered office and listed the matter for final disposal in the last week of July after the summer vacation.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Hindusthan National Glass & Industries, submitted that the company had already shifted its registered office from Kolkata to Mumbai on 5 February 2026 pursuant to an order of the Regional Director and had operated from there for over three months without any stay.
The Court questioned whether Rule 30(9) of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014—which permits shifting of a registered office after approval of a resolution plan only when no appeal remains pending before any court or tribunal—applied to the present case. It further observed that the issue would ultimately require interpretation by the Supreme Court.
The Bench also questioned the rationale for directing the company to move its registered office back to Kolkata after it had already operated from Mumbai for several months.
During the hearing, counsel for Jeel Kandla Service, an MSME operational creditor, argued that the alleged shifting existed only on paper and described the company's claim of operating from Mumbai as an “ipse dixit”, i.e. a bare assertion without supporting evidence.
In response, Singhvi relied on the certificate of incorporation showing the Mumbai address and submitted that the change of registered office had attained legal finality under the Companies Act.
Background
The dispute arose from the shifting of the registered office of Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd from West Bengal to Maharashtra after Independent Sugar Corporation Limited's resolution plan received approval under the insolvency framework.
Jeel Kandla Service challenged the Regional Director's approval, arguing that appeals against the resolution plan remained pending before the NCLAT and therefore Rule 30(9) of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 barred the shift.
The Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, by order dated 27 February 2026, dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the absence of any stay on the resolution plan and the absence of demonstrated prejudice meant that the Regional Director's approval did not warrant interference.
However, the Division Bench set aside that view and held that the second proviso to Rule 30(9) required strict interpretation and that authorities could not permit shifting of a registered office while appeals against the resolution plan remained pending before the NCLAT.