Delay In Constituting NCLAT May Amount To Contempt Of Supreme Court's Direction

OVERVIEW

• The Madras High Court on Monday observed that the delay in establishing a Bench of NCLAT in Chennai may amount to contempt of the Supreme Court's direction in the Swiss Ribbons case to establish circuit Benches of the Tribunal.

• A Division bench comprising of Justice M. Sathyanarayanan and Justice P. Rajamanickam directed the Additional Solicitor General of India to seek instructions in the matter and file a counter affidavit.

• The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Advocate GV Mohan Kumar, stating that the delay in establishing the Bench is creating serious difficulties in access to justice for the Litigants and Lawyers. The Petitioner's Counsel Naveen Kumar Murthi had submitted,

"considering the fact that the NCLAT is situated only in New Delhi and the litigants and lawyers from the farther parts of the country, especially the Southern region comprising of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telegana including the Union Territory of Puducherry find it difficult to travel for each and every hearing and conduct their cases in New Delhi due to the same being both financially expensive and time consuming, t was considered a necessity to create a regional bench of the NCLAT in the southern region."

FURTHER DETAILS

• He submitted that in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., the Attorney General had assured the Apex Court that Circuit Benches will be established. The Supreme Court had recorded this submission with a direction to comply within six months.

• On being inquired as to why no action was taken despite the direction of the Supreme Court to constitute circuit Benches within 6 months, the Additional Solicitor General of India Shankar Narayanan informed the Division bench that Justice M. Venugopal and Mr. Kanti Narahari were supposed to commence sitting in NCLAT, Chennai Bench but there was some delay.

• It may be noted that on March 13, 2020, the Central government constituted NCLAT, Chennai to hear appeals against the orders of the Benches of NCLT having jurisdiction of Karnataka, TN, Kerala, AP, Telangana, Lakshadweep and Puducherry.

WRAPPING IT UP

• In this backdrop the Petitioner has submitted that even though physical establishment for the institution has also been allotted and all the preparatory works have been completed, no further action has been taken to ensure commencement of its functioning.

• Advocates Naveen Kumar Murthi, S.Varsha, K. Bratheesh, Sanjesh Mahalingam and Ananth K. appeared for the Petitioner.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS? LET US KNOW IN THE COMMENTS SECTION BELOW!