Sanchayita Lahkar

The Calcutta High Court, Single Bench of Justice Amrita Sinha, dismissed a writ petition challenging the relocation of the Kolkata Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) from its current location at 5, Esplanade Row West, B.B.D. Bag, Kolkata 700001 to Corporate Bhawan at New Town, Akandakeshari, Kolkata 700135. The court concluded that the relocation, aimed at administrative efficiency and public convenience, could not be stalled on the grounds advanced by the petitioners.

The writ petition was filed by the NCLT Advocates Bar Association, Kolkata Bench, along with a litigant and a clerk practicing in the tribunal, opposing the shifting of the NCLT to New Town. The petitioners argued that the present location near the High Court was convenient and accessible to stakeholders including advocates, litigants, and clerical staff.

Also Read: “Letting the Appellant Face Trial Would Be an Abuse of the Process”: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case, Notes Woman “Willingly Accompanied Accused to Hotel Room Thrice”

It was submitted that the new location was situated in a remote area, approximately twenty-eight kilometres from the High Court, lacking proper connectivity and supporting infrastructure. Petitioners contended that such a shift would severely impair access to justice and impede the smooth functioning of the tribunal.

The petitioners raised concerns over the judiciary's independence, asserting that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, rather than the Ministry of Law and Justice, was in charge of setting up the new infrastructure. They submitted that "there is high chance of the judiciary being influenced if the corporate affairs department is permitted to set up the infrastructural facility of NCLT."

The petitioners also relied upon Article 50 of the Constitution of India, which mandates separation of the judiciary from the executive, suggesting that infrastructural dependence on the executive branch compromised judicial independence. Additionally, they cited Supreme Court judgments in Swiss Ribbons Private Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 17 and Union of India vs. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association (2010) 11 SCC 1, which indicated that administrative support for all tribunals should be from the Ministry of Law and Justice.

The petitioners argued that public opinion had not been sought prior to the decision to shift, and no advertisements or notifications had been issued. They asserted that adequate space existed in the current building and suggested that shifting other departments to Corporate Bhawan could free up space for NCLT operations.

In response, the Union of India, represented by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, argued that the allegations regarding impairment of judicial independence were not pleaded in the writ petition but introduced orally during the hearing, and thus could not be addressed in detail.

The respondents contended that the decision to shift the tribunal was a policy matter not subject to judicial review unless there was arbitrariness or mala fide involved. They asserted that access to justice would not be hampered, and the shift was necessary due to lack of space and infrastructure at the existing site.

It was submitted that the tribunal currently faced difficulties due to scarcity of space, which delayed justice delivery and prevented filling up of all sanctioned posts. Out of six sanctioned posts, only two were functional. The new building at New Town would facilitate the operation of four benches, aiding in the timely disposal of cases.

Respondents also stated that the new premises offered modern infrastructure, reliable internet connectivity for virtual hearings, and housed related departments such as the Registrar of Companies, Official Liquidator, and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office under one roof. This arrangement was claimed to enhance administrative efficiency and support the ease of doing business.

They contended that the new site, though initially perceived as remote, was a developing area with growing transport and commercial facilities. They stated that "once the infrastructure is set up, the connecting facilities will develop within a short period of time."

Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments in Allahabad University vs. Gitanjali Tewari (Pandey) (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3776), Federation of Railway Officers’ Association vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 289, and Union of India vs. Kannadapara Sanghatanejala Okkutala and Kannadigara (2002) 10 SCC 226 to assert that courts should not interfere in administrative decisions such as the situs of institutions.

The court examined the pleadings, oral submissions, and legal precedents to determine the merits of the case.

It observed that the core objection raised by the petitioners related to the distance between the current and proposed locations. The court recorded: "The primary reason for resisting the shifting from its old location to the new one is the distance between the two places." The concern about inaccessibility and lack of infrastructure at the new location was noted but treated as part of the transition process.

On the issue of judicial independence, the court stated: "Objection was never raised by any of the parties that there has been interference in the administration of justice so long as NCLT was functioning at its old place. There is no reason as to why there will be interference in the administration of justice if the location of NCLT is changed from one place to the other."

Addressing infrastructural concerns, the court observed: "These are the initial birth pangs which occur whenever a new site or a place is tried to be developed. One has to overcome these factors to achieve anything new."

The court rejected the submission that senior advocates would avoid appearing in New Town, stating: "In my opinion, it will be a great opportunity for the junior members of the bar to get themselves prepared for arguing the matter before NCLT."

Regarding the issue of ministry control, the court acknowledged the directions in Swiss Ribbons and Madras Bar Association, stating: "The administrative support for all Tribunals should be from the Ministry of Law and Justice... The Union of India ought to take reformative step in this regard. The same, however, cannot be a ground to stall the shift from the old building to a new one at a different location."

It also noted that relocation was a painful but often necessary step for development. The court recorded: "From time immemorial people have resisted to change and shift from one place to the other. Relocation is painful. Adjusting to a new place may not be easy always. There may be difficulties and challenges in the process."

Also Read: Delhi High Court Declines Quashing of FIR Against Real Estate Firm; Notes "Prima Facie Ingredients of Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust" Amid Pre-Approval Booking Controversy

The court dismissed the writ petition and vacated the interim order that had earlier restrained the relocation. The judgment recorded: "The writ petition stands dismissed. The interim order stands vacated. No costs."

It further directed that: "It is expected that all stakeholders will accept the shifting of NCLT to the new building without any grudge or ill feeling and work harmoniously in aid of proper and speedy dispensation of justice."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the writ petitioners: Joy Saha, Senior Advocate, Manju Bhuteria, Senior Advocate, Patita Paban Bishwal, Advocate, Urmila Chakraborty, Advocate, Namrrataa Basu, Advocate, Kanishk Kejriwal, Advocate, Rashhmi Singhee, Advocate, Janvi Luhariwala, Advocate, Arundhuti Burman, Advocate, Aishwarya Chowdhury, Advocate, Dripto Majumdar, Advocate.

For the Union of India: Dhiraj Trivedi, Advocate, Avinash Kankani, Advocate.

Case Title: NCLT Advocates Bar Association, Kolkata Bench & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: WPA 4927 of 2023

Bench: Justice Amrita Sinha

[Read/Download order]