Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Arif Doctor today asked the petitioner who sought direction for establishing a bench of NCLAT in Mumbai to approach the NCLAT Chairperson for permanent virtual hearings. 

The high court also asked the petitioner to move the Supreme Court against the Union for not honouring the undertaking made before the Supreme Court. The Union had made a statement before the Supreme Court that it would set up a circuit bench of NCLAT in four regions where there are high courts. 

Advocate Pratik Sarkar appearing for the petitioner, Nicky Pokar, pointed out today that under Section 61 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code 2016, an appeal lies before the NCLAT against the order of the NCLT. However, the code was silent on the seat of NCLAT. 

The high court was also informed that virtual hearings were conducted during the pandemic but a circular was issued by NCLAT that from July 15, 2022, only physical hearings would take place. 

Advocate Sarkar also informed the court that pursuant to the undertaking before the Supreme Court, the Union had set up a circuit bench in Chennai for the south region, however, since there was no bench for the western zone lawyers were facing difficulties to approach the NCLAT bench in Delhi.

The high court then disposed of the PIL while remarking that there was no statutory provision under which the high court could issue a writ of mandamus to the Union. The court then asked the petitioner to approach the high court if the Chairman of NCLAT denies permanent virtual hearings.

The plea stated that the then Attorney General KK Venugopal had assured the Supreme Court that the directions in Madras Bar Association will be followed, and that circuit benches of NCLAT will be established.

"That respondent 1/Uol, during the proceedings in Swiss Ribbons (2019) 4 SCC 17 was directed within 6 months for establishing of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal' circuit benches outside Delhi, which is yet to be complied with, causing immense hardship to advocates/litigants alike who're stationed outside New Delhi," the plea read.

The plea which was filed in 2020 stated that the advocates outside Delhi are facing difficulties due to the mandatory filling of hard copies.

"That NCLAT/respondent 2 is having its location only in New Delhi, and its Operating Procedure mandates filing of physical/hard copies of Appeal/IA's etc...thus causing difficulty for Advocates/Petitioner who are outside Delhi; given the current pandemic condition, axiomatic to state given the poor financial health of a large section of the public, coupled with travel and other restrictions, difficulties are aggravated - 'seeking speedy & cost-effective justice is the casualty in corollary," the plea stated.

Case title: Nicky Porkar vs UOI