NCLT imposes Rs. 10 Lakh Cost for seeking transfer of cases on minor excuses

Cyrus Investment & Anr Vs. Tata Sons Ltd. & Ors. (National Company Law Tribunal)

A perusal of the aforesaid prayer does not leave any manner of doubt that the prayer was made for entrusting the Company Petition No. 82/2016 to such Bench of the NCLT as may be appropriate for hearing the same on the merits of the case. However, there is no mention of any such prayer in the order of the Hon’ble NCLAT. In other words, the prayer is deemed to have been made an Order 2 Rule 2 and in law it is presumed to be rejected apart from the allegations of concealment on that count in the present application. We are constrained to observe that during the course of hearing we asked the learned counsel for the applicants specifically with regard to any such prayer made before the Honble NCLAT but no reply by the applicants was furnished. Therefore, we are of the considered view that this application is devoid of merit and thus liable to be dismissed.

We may observe before parting that we have not opined on the nature of jurisdiction under Rule 16 (d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 as to whether it is administrative or judicial. Suffice is to say that the cardinal principle is as to whether ends of justice demand the transfer of the Company Petition or not. We find that directing the transfer of the petition would attract a unsavoury tendency of seeking transfer on minor excuses which needs to be discouraged. Therefore, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the prayer made in the application.