1. Facts of the Case
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) decided to shift the NCLT Kolkata Bench from its
existing location near the Calcutta High Court to Corporate Bhawan, New Town. The NCLT Advocates Bar Association opposed this decision. They said that the shifting would cause inconvenience to advocates, clerks and litigants. They also raised concerns about the
independence of the NCLT because other MCA-related offices were also located in the new
premises.
2. Who Filed the Case?
NCLT Advocates Bar Association filed the case.
3. Against Whom?
The case was filed against the Union of India / concerned authorities, mainly challenging the
decision of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to shift the NCLT.
4. What Did They Want?
They wanted the NCLT Kolkata Bench to continue functioning from its existing premises instead
of being shifted to Corporate Bhawan, New Town.
5. Main Issue*
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Government's administrative decision to shift the NCLT Kolkata Bench to another location?
6. Arguments of the Association
The Association argued that:
The shifting was arbitrary.
It could affect the independence of the NCLT.
NCLT would be housed along with various MCA offices.
They relied on Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the independence of tribunals.
7. Arguments of the Government
The Government argued that the location and infrastructure of a Tribunal are administrative
matters.
According to the Government, the Court should not interfere unless the decision was illegal,
arbitrary or mala fide.
8. Decision of the Single Judge
The Association had first approached the Calcutta High Court through a writ petition under
Article 226.
The matter was decided by a Single Judge on 25 March 2025. The Association then challenged
that decision by filing an appeal before the Division Bench.
9. Decision of the Division Bench
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal.
The Court held that decisions regarding the location, infrastructure and functioning arrangements of the NCLT are primarily administrative/policy matters of the executive. Courts
should not interfere unless there is clear illegality, arbitrariness or violation of legal/constitutional rights.
The Court also found no evidence of mala fide or arbitrariness in the Government's decision.
10. Important Observation
Although the appeal was dismissed, the Court directed the Ministry of Law and Justice to make
efforts, when feasible, to consider shifting the NCLT Kolkata Bench to a more suitable and
independent premises in the future.
11. Sections / Provisions
Article 226, Constitution of India – Writ jurisdiction of High Court.
Section 421, Companies Act, 2013 – Appeal from orders of Tribunal.
12. Final Learning
The Government can generally decide the location and infrastructure of a Tribunal as an
administrative matter. Courts will not interfere unless the decision is illegal, arbitrary or mala fide.
In one line:
NCLT Advocates Bar Association challenged the shifting of NCLT Kolkata, but the Calcutta
High Court refused to stop the shifting because it was an administrative decision of the
Government.