Why No Full-Time Members at NCLT Indore Since 2017? MP High Court Seeks Centre’s Justification for Non-Posting Despite Member Availability
- REEDLAW
- May 5
- 3 min read
MP High Court sought the Centre’s justification for not having posted full-time members at the NCLT Indore Bench since its establishment in 2017, despite the availability of members without courtrooms at other benches.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench), in a Division Bench comprising Justice Gajendra Singh and Justice Vivek Kumar, reviewed a writ petition and observed that the lack of courtrooms for certain NCLT members at other benches presents a justifiable administrative ground to post such members to the NCLT Indore Bench, thereby making it fully functional. The Court further held that continued non-functionality of the Indore Bench, despite its establishment, calls for administrative accountability and that failure to address the issue may lead to judicial intervention.
The High Court considered a petition seeking the establishment of a fully functional and independent permanent bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Indore. Although the bench at Indore had been formally established in January 2017, no regular full-time members had been posted there until the date of the order. As an interim arrangement, the Division Bench of NCLT, Ahmedabad, had been conducting proceedings for the Indore Bench through virtual conferencing during the second half of the day.
An interlocutory application (IA No. 2202/2025) was filed by the petitioner, requesting appropriate directions to ensure that the NCLT Indore Bench is made independently operational. The petitioner also submitted a status report reflecting the functioning condition of all NCLT benches as of 07.03.2025. During the hearing, Shri Vijayesh Atre, counsel for the petitioner, highlighted that multiple members at other benches—such as the Principal Bench in Delhi and the benches at Kolkata and Mumbai—were functioning without courtrooms. For instance, in Delhi, the sixth Division Bench had no courtroom since 2019; similarly, one of the judicial members in Kolkata and the seventh Division Bench in Mumbai also lacked courtrooms.
Based on this, it was suggested that members who were presently without proper court infrastructure at their respective benches could be posted to the Indore Bench to render it fully operational. Shri Atre also submitted that the High Court Bar Association had made representations and even communicated directly with the Hon’ble President of the NCLT, but no response had been received to date.
The Court took note of these facts and observed that it was indeed feasible to post at least two members to the Indore Bench. Accordingly, the Deputy Solicitor General, Shri Himanshu Joshi, representing the Union of India, was directed to seek instructions from the Hon’ble President of the NCLT and the Principal Secretaries of the Ministries of Law & Justice and Corporate Affairs, explaining why members from NCLT Delhi or Mumbai could not be permanently posted at Indore. The Court also made it clear that failure to provide a satisfactory explanation may lead to the issuance of a judicial order or writ. The matter was listed for further hearing on 13.05.2025.
Mr. Vijayesh Atre and Ms. Aarya Chhangani, Advocates, represented the Petitioners.
Mr. Bhuwan Gautam, Government Advocate, appeared for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
Mr. Himanshu Joshi, Deputy Solicitor General, appeared for Respondent No. 1/UOI.
Subscribers can access premium content such as the full text of the case, detailed analysis, ratio decidendi, headnotes, legal research, cited case laws, and the latest updates on statutes, notifications, and more. To subscribe, please click Subscribe.
If you are a subscriber, please explore these resources by clicking the following citation/link.
Comments