The Centre has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Gujarat High Court ruling that restricted the NCLT President’s power to transfer cases between Benches. It argued that the High Court “wrongly created territorial limits” that are not provided under Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016.
The Union government has moved the Supreme Court, challenging a Gujarat High Court decision that said the President of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) cannot administratively move cases from one Bench to another beyond the territorial limits of the Bench concerned.
A Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohan has issued notice and asked ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Private Limited (formerly Essar Steel India Limited) to respond to the appeal.
At the heart of the dispute is the meaning of Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which allows the NCLT President to transfer any case from one Bench to another Bench when the circumstances so warrant.
ALSO READ: NCLT Cannot Decide Trademark Ownership Under Section 60(5) IBC During CIRP: Supreme Court
The Gujarat High Court had held that this power cannot be used to shift matters outside the territorial jurisdiction of the original Bench. On that basis, it quashed administrative orders that moved ArcelorMittal-related proceedings from the NCLT Ahmedabad Bench to the NCLT Mumbai Bench.
In its appeal, the Centre argues that the High Court wrongly added a territorial restriction that is not stated in Rule 16(d). The government maintains that the NCLT is a single national tribunal with one administrative structure, and that different Benches are meant mainly for convenience and better access to justice not to create strict geographic boundaries.
The Centre therefore says Rule 16(d) enables inter-Bench transfers across the country when warranted.
The Union government also points to the circumstances that led to the transfer orders. It notes that two NCLT Benches in Ahmedabad had recused themselves from hearing the ArcelorMittal matters, creating a need for administrative action to keep proceedings moving and prevent a situation where hearings cannot take place.
The case involves Essar Steel/ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel proceedings. An NCLT Ahmedabad Bench recused itself on January 9, 2024, and another Ahmedabad Bench followed in April 2024.
The NCLT President then issued administrative transfer orders dated June 6, 2024, and February 10, 2025, moving the cases to the Mumbai Bench.
ArcelorMittal challenged both the recusal orders and the transfer orders before the Gujarat High Court. Justice Niral R. Mehta set aside the recusal and transfer orders, holding that the NCLT President did not have authority to alter or extend the territorial jurisdiction of a Bench.
Subsequently, in February 2026, a division bench of the Gujarat High Court asked the Centre to approach the Supreme Court because a similar legal issue was already pending before the apex court. The Supreme Court had agreed in January 2026 to consider the same question in another matter filed by Anita Rayapatti that arose from the same judgment.
ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel is represented by Advocate Ruby Singh Ahuja, Senior Partner at Karanjawala & Co.