Petitioners sought a declaration that Rule 8 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 is unconstitutional for locating the Tribunal only in Delhi, denying access to justice to Southern litigants. The High Court refused to interfere with the Government's policy decision and dismissed the petitions.
Petitions dismissed; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.12.2018
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.P.Nos.33663 and 33383 of 2018 W.M.P.No.39071 of 2018
W.P. No.33663 of 2018
A.K.Athiban Vijay ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Union of India
Represented by its Secretary
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Shastri Bhawan
Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road
New Delhi - 110 001
2. Union of India
Represented by its Secretary
Ministry of Law and Justice
Shastri Bhawan, A-Wing
Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road
New Delhi - 110 001 ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Declaration, to declare that the provision of Rule 8 of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to establish a Southern Regional Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
W.P. No.33383 of 2018
CA V.Venkata Siva Kumar
... Petitioner
vs.
3.The Hon'ble NCLAT Rep. by the Hon'ble Registrar 3rd Floor, Pt. Deen Dayal Antyodaya Bhawan CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003
4.The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India Rep. by the Hon'ble Chairperson 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan
Shankar Market, Connaught Circus New Delhi - 110 001 ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to issue notification for establishment of Regional Bench of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in the State of Tamil Nadu, at an appropriate place, taking into consideration the availability of infrastructure, within a period as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper and till the issuance of Notification of Regional Bench, the Circuit Bench shall hold the proceedings every month at Chennai immediately.
For Petitioner : Mr.Satish Parasaran, Sr. Counsel in W.P.33663/18 for M.Sricharan Rangarajan
For Petitioner : Mr.CA.V.Venkatasivakumar in W.P.33383/18 Party-in-person For Respondents : Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy, SPCGSC COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J)
As prayers in both the writ petitions are common, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.
travel all the way to New Delhi, in order to move the NCLAT against an order of NCLT.
the neighbouring States of New Delhi; that establishment of a Southern Regional Bench, will make the appellate procedure more simple and easily accessible for persons aggrieved by the order of the National Company Law Tribunals.
Heard the learned Senior counsel and perused the materials available on record.
(i) In Kanhaiya Lal Sethia v. Union of India reported in 1997 (6) SCC 573, at Paragraphs 2 and 3, held as follows:
"Generally speaking, the courts do not, in exercise of their power of judicial review, interfere in policy matters of the State, unless the policy so formulated either violates the mandate of the Constitution or any statutory provision or is otherwise actuated by mala fides. No such infirmity is present in the instant case.
(ii) In Narmada Bachao Andolan etc. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in AIR 2000 SC 3751, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the question of judicial review of policy
decision by the Government on a PIL, expressed the views that if a policy decision is taken by the Government, after due care and consideration, unless the same is in conflict with any law or mala fide, it will not be in the public interest to require the Court to go into and investigate those areas which are the function of the executive. At Paragraphs 232 to 234, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:
"232. While protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner utmost care has to be taken that the court does not transgress its jurisdiction. There is, in our constitutional framework a fairly clear demarcation of powers. The court has come down heavily whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the court's jurisdiction.
alleges that such a decision should not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertaking of the project, which view may have been considered by the Government, is possible. When two or more options or views are possible and after considering them the Government takes a policy decision it is then not the function of the court to go into the matter afresh and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision"."
(iii) In Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India reported in 2002 (2) SCC 333, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 97 and 98, held as follows:
"97. Judicial interference by way of PIL is available if there is injury to public because of dereliction of Constitutional or statutory obligations on the part of the government. Here it is not so and in the sphere of economic policy or reform the Court is not the appropriate forum. Every matter of public interest or curiosity cannot be the subject matter of PIL. Courts are not intended to and nor should they conduct the administration of the country. Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of Constitutional or statutory provisions or noncompliance by the State with it's Constitutional or statutory duties. None of these contingencies arise in this present case.
(iv) In State of M.P., v. Narmada Bachao Andolan reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 875, at Paragraphs 36 and 37, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as follows:
"36. The Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been fairer or more scientific or logical or wiser. The wisdom and advisability of the policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless the policies are contrary to statutory or constitutional provisions or arbitrary or irrational or an abuse of power. (See Ram Singh Vijay Pal Singh v. State of U.P. [(2007) 6 SCC 44], Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India [(2009) 7 SCC 561] and State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties [(2009) 8 SCC 46].)
18. Judicial notice can be taken that that when a similar plea was made to set up a Southern Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition(s)(civil) No.409 of 2015 [A.M.Krishna v. Union of India] the same was declined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after hearing the both parties.
19. In the light of the above discussion and decision, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar DM To 1. The Secretary Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) Union of India, Garage No.14, "A" Wing Shastri Bhawan, Rajendra Prasad Road New Delhi - 110 001
VSN-II(CO) SSM(15/04/2019).
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Rule 8 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 mandating sittings only at New Delhi violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Government's policy decision regarding the location of the NCLAT benchmark.
Whether access to justice is denied to litigants from Southern states due to the sole location of the Appellate Tribunal at Delhi.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kanhaiya Lal Sethia v. Union of IndiaReferred¶43
1997 (6) SCC 573 · Who else cites this
Narmada Bachao Andolan etc. v. Union of India and Ors.Referred¶46
AIR 2000 SC 3751 · Who else cites this
Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of IndiaReferred¶54
2002 (2) SCC 333 · Who else cites this
State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao AndolanReferred¶57
(2011) 7 SCC 639 · Who else cites this
A.M. Krishna v. Union of IndiaReferred¶62
Writ Petition(s)(civil) No.409 of 2015 [A.M.Krishna v. Union of India]
4 provisions across 3 enactments
A. K. Athiban Vijay
V. Venkata Siva Kumar
Union of India
NCLAT
S. Manikumar
Subramonium Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
