In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court seeking direction to the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLT) to place the matter before a competent bench for hearing and disposal of petitioner’s urgent/early hearing application before any final order in any pending Interlocutory Applications is pronounced regarding the insolvency proceeding against the Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd., a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 25,000/- for the petitioner’s conduct.
The petitioner was a homebuyer in the project – Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) and was a member of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) constituted in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor pending in the said insolvency proceeding. Kone Elevators India Pvt. Ltd. filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and respondent 2 passed an order dated 27-02-2023, directing commencement of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor and an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) passed a significant disciplinary order against the said IRP, suspending his registration as an Insolvency Professional for two years. The insolvency proceedings continued before respondent 2 and a resolution plan was approved by the CoC. An application seeking approval of the resolution plan was also filed. On 08-06-2026, the petitioner filed a Transfer Application before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, under Section 419 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rules 11 and 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, seeking transfer of the insolvency proceedings to NCLT as well as an ex-parte ad-interim stay on the proceedings. By an order dated 09-06-2026, respondent 2 reserved orders for approval of the resolution plan.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an interim application before respondent 2 seeking de-reserving of the said order and mentioned the application for urgent listing. The same was allowed to be listed on 12-06-2026, but was not listed. The President, NCLT, recused from hearing the Transfer Application and the same was directed to be listed on 12-06-2026 before NCLT, Court III, New Delhi. NCLT, by an order dated 12-06-2026, directed the petitioner to place the order dated 09-06-2026 and adjourned the transfer application to 17-07-2026.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Rejects Plea Alleging Horse-Trading of MLAs & Erosion of Democracy
By an email dated 14-06-2026 to the Registrar, NCLT, the petitioner requested the constitution of a special bench for early hearing of the transfer application. However, the said request was not allowed and aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition.
The Court noted that the petitioner had not challenged any order, but only sought a direction to NCLT for early listing and disposal of transfer application before respondent 2 pronounced order in the application seeking approval of the resolution plan. It was also noted that in the alternative, the petitioner sought a direction to respondent 2 to maintain status quo for the resolution plan application until the transfer application is adjudicated.
It was stated that NCLT is presided over by its President and that the constitution of a special bench as well as listing of matters during the vacation period, falls within the exclusive prerogative of the President. The Court held that such direction could not be issued against a Tribunal as High Courts ordinarily ought to refrain from invoking their extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution where proceedings are pending before a competent Tribunal.
The Court was apprised that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against the order dated 09-06-2026. It was stated that the petitioner had availed an alternative statutory remedy, wherein a similar relief was sought. The Court held that it was also open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before NCLT seeking early hearing of the transfer petition or to mention the same before the President. The Court said that invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Court instead of availing the said remedies was wholly misconceived.
The Court felt that the filing of the transfer petition was an afterthought as it had been instituted at a highly belated stage after the commencement of the Insolvency Proceedings. The Court held the petitioner’s conduct to be forum shopping as he sought to approach multiple forums for substantially identical reliefs. It was said that the petitioner had abused the process of law and the Court held that none of the reliefs could be granted to the petitioner. Thus, the petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- for the petitioner’s conduct.
