Supreme Court Transfers Pending IBC Appeal to NCLAT Principal Bench Amid Allegations of Attempted Judicial Influence
- REEDLAW
- Nov 17
- 3 min read
REEDLAW Legal News Network reports: In a significant development concerning judicial integrity and insolvency adjudication, the Supreme Court on 14 November 2025 ordered the transfer of a pending insolvency appeal from the NCLAT Chennai Bench to the NCLAT Principal Bench. The Court acted in view of concerns surrounding allegations of attempted judicial influence, emphasising the need for a fair, impartial, and confidence-inspiring adjudicatory process.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while adjudicating a Criminal Writ Petition along with a connected Interlocutory Application, held that the interests of justice required transferring the pending insolvency appeal from the NCLAT Chennai Bench to the NCLAT Principal Bench. The Court directed the Chairperson of the NCLAT to hear and dispose of the matter expeditiously and clarified that allegations relating to attempted judicial influence would be examined separately as an administrative issue by the Chief Justice of India.
The writ petition had been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions for registration of a criminal case based on disclosures made by a Judicial Member of the Appellate Tribunal in an order dated 13.08.2025 concerning an alleged attempt to influence the adjudication of a pending Company Appeal. The Petitioner, an Operational Creditor of the Corporate Debtor, had initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code before the Adjudicating Authority, which had admitted the insolvency application and commenced the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. A suspended director of the Corporate Debtor thereafter preferred a statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which stayed further proceedings in the CIRP and later reserved judgment on 18.06.2025. An intervening incident, recorded in the order dated 13.08.2025, led to the present petition seeking a court-monitored investigation into the alleged misconduct.
The Court heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and examined the record. It is considered that the foremost issue was the fair and impartial adjudication of the pending Company Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which had remained undecided owing to the circumstances noted in the order of 13.08.2025. Although no notice had been issued to the concerned Respondents, the Court found it unnecessary at this stage, noting that the directions contemplated would not prejudice them.
In order to ensure proper adjudication, the Court directed that the pending Company Appeal be transferred from the Appellate Tribunal’s Chennai Bench to its Principal Bench in New Delhi along with the complete record. The Court requested the Hon’ble Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal to list and hear the matter before a bench presided over by His Lordship and to decide it expeditiously after issuing notice and granting adequate opportunity of hearing to all contesting parties. Respondents were directed to cooperate with the proceedings and to ensure that no impediment was caused in the prompt disposal of the appeal.
The Court also requested the Principal Bench to consider the pending application for vacation of stay and to examine whether it was appropriate to direct the Interim Resolution Professional appointed by the Adjudicating Authority to continue managing the affairs of the Corporate Debtor during the pendency of the appeal. Directions were issued for forwarding copies of the order to all Respondents, including officers of the Appellate Tribunal, to secure timely implementation.
With regard to the broader concerns raised in the petition concerning allegations of attempted influence on the judicial process, the Court observed that the issues raised were undoubtedly of public importance. It expressed confidence that the competent authorities would have examined the available material and taken necessary steps. The Court considered it appropriate to treat the petition as a representation containing additional information for the consideration of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India on the administrative side, while clarifying that the law would take its own course.
The writ petition, along with pending interlocutory applications, was accordingly disposed of.
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR and Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate, represented the Petitioner.
This is premium content available to our subscribers.
To access the full content related to this article — including the complete judgment, detailed legal analysis, ratio decidendi, headnotes, cited case laws, and updates on relevant statutes and notifications — we invite you to subscribe to REEDLAW’s premium research platform.
Click here to Subscribe and unlock exclusive access to structured legal analysis, judicial summaries, and a comprehensive legal research database.
REEDLAW Legal Intelligence & Research is India’s most trusted legal publishing and research platform, empowering professionals with structured judicial insights and authoritative legal intelligence since 1985.
The platform offers comprehensive resources spanning Corporate Insolvency, Bankruptcy, Company Law, SARFAESI, Debt Recovery, Contract, MSMEs, Arbitration, Banking, and Commercial Laws. Through curated journals like IBC Reporter and Bank CLR, and an advanced Online Legal Research Database, REEDLAW simplifies complex legal research for professionals, institutions, and academia across India.
Comments