NCLT and NCLAT under administrative law
📘 NCLT and NCLAT under Administrative Law
🔹 What is Administrative Law?
Administrative law governs the functioning of administrative authorities and tribunals. It ensures that executive actions are legal, reasonable, and just, especially when they affect citizens' rights.
In India, tribunals like the NCLT and NCLAT are quasi-judicial bodies created to reduce the burden on courts and offer specialized, speedy resolution of disputes in specific domains — here, in corporate law.
⚖️ NCLT and NCLAT: Overview
🔹 National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)
Constituted under Section 408 of the Companies Act, 2013.
A quasi-judicial body that deals with company law matters, including:
Oppression and mismanagement
Mergers and acquisitions
Company liquidation
Insolvency matters (after IBC, 2016)
🔹 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)
Constituted under Section 410 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Hears appeals from NCLT, orders of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), and the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
💡 Under Administrative Law, NCLT and NCLAT are:
Administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions.
Bound by principles of natural justice.
Subject to judicial review by High Courts (under Article 226) and Supreme Court (under Article 136).
🧑⚖️ Important Case Laws on NCLT and NCLAT
1. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) 11 SCC 1
Facts:
The validity of Chapter XXVII of the Companies Act, 1956, which proposed the formation of the NCLT and NCLAT, was challenged for violating the separation of powers and judicial independence.
Issues:
Can adjudicatory powers of High Courts be transferred to tribunals like NCLT/NCLAT?
Are the provisions constitutionally valid?
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of NCLT and NCLAT but read down certain provisions that affected judicial independence (e.g., appointment, tenure, and qualifications of members).
Significance:
Established that tribunals under administrative law must function independently.
Reinforced that administrative tribunals like NCLT must follow judicial standards and principles.
2. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17
Facts:
Challenge was made to certain provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, especially the power and independence of NCLT and NCLAT in insolvency resolution.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of IBC and the role of NCLT and NCLAT in its implementation.
Affirmed that NCLT and NCLAT are independent judicial bodies, though they are part of the administrative framework.
Significance:
Confirmed the efficacy and legitimacy of NCLT/NCLAT as adjudicatory bodies under administrative law.
Emphasized the need for timely resolution in insolvency matters via tribunals.
3. ArcelorMittal India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2019) 2 SCC 1
Facts:
A dispute arose under the IBC regarding the eligibility of resolution applicants. NCLT's decision was appealed to NCLAT and then to the Supreme Court.
Held:
The Supreme Court interpreted the powers and duties of the NCLT and NCLAT under the IBC framework, emphasizing that:
NCLT has limited judicial review — it cannot go into commercial decisions of the committee of creditors (CoC).
NCLAT must act within its statutory mandate.
Significance:
Clarified the jurisdictional limits of NCLT and NCLAT under administrative law.
Reinforced the functional independence of tribunals within statutory boundaries.
4. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261
Although this case predates the formation of NCLT, it lays down important administrative law principles governing tribunals.
Facts:
The constitutional validity of tribunals under Articles 323A and 323B was challenged, especially regarding exclusion of High Court jurisdiction.
Held:
Tribunals are subordinate to High Courts.
Their decisions are subject to judicial review under Article 226/227.
Tribunals must follow principles of natural justice and function like courts.
Significance:
This case is foundational for understanding the status of NCLT and NCLAT as administrative tribunals. It ensures they function constitutionally and fairly.
5. Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank (2018) 1 SCC 407
Facts:
This was one of the first major cases under the IBC where the NCLT admitted a case filed by ICICI Bank against Innoventive Industries for default.
Issue:
Whether the NCLT had acted correctly in admitting the insolvency petition.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the NCLT’s order, stating that once default is established, NCLT has no discretion to reject the petition.
Significance:
Clarified the mechanical and limited role of NCLT in certain IBC cases.
Showed how tribunals under administrative law must act within the scope of enabling legislation.
📊 Comparative Overview — NCLT/NCLAT under Administrative Law
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nature | Quasi-judicial tribunals created by legislation |
| Purpose | Specialized adjudication in company and insolvency law |
| Legislation | Companies Act, 2013 and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 |
| Jurisdiction | Civil disputes in corporate and insolvency matters |
| Reviewable By | High Courts (Articles 226/227), Supreme Court (Article 136) |
| Bound by | Principles of natural justice and administrative law |
| Appointment | Judicial and technical members (with constitutional safeguards post R. Gandhi) |
🔚 Conclusion
NCLT and NCLAT are essential instruments of administrative law in India, designed to:
Deliver specialized justice in corporate and insolvency matters
Reduce the burden on traditional courts
Ensure speed, expertise, and efficiency
However, as administrative tribunals, they must operate:
Within the boundaries of the Constitution
Under judicial review
In compliance with natural justice
The case laws discussed above demonstrate how courts have shaped and monitored the functioning, independence, and jurisdiction of these tribunals under administrative law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments