Supreme Court adjourns suo motu case on NCLT vacancies, infrastructure; says appointments process underway

New Delhi, The Supreme Court has deferred hearing on a suo motu case related to delays in the appointment of members in the National Company Law Tribunals and infrastructure issues, saying the appointment process is currently underway.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, on Monday, deferred hearing the suo motu (on its own) case concerning delays in the appointment of judicial and technical members to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and deficiencies in its infrastructure.

Also read: NCLT to admit case only if debt, default established: Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Amendment) Act


During the hearing, a counsel pointed out that the suo motu proceedings were not confined to vacancies in the NCLT but also covered concerns relating to inadequate infrastructure and the Tribunal's disposal rate.

"My brothers (the judges of other bench) have rightly raised the issue; it is a serious concern," the CJI said.

The suo motu proceedings, titled In Re: Appointment of Judicial and Technical Members and Inadequate Infrastructure in National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and Ancillary Issues, were registered on May 19 following the Supreme Court's judgment on April 29 in AVJ Heightss Apartment Owners Association Vs IIFL Finance Ltd case.

In that judgment, a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan had expressed serious concern over persistent delays in the approval of resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Taking suo motu cognisance of what it described as a "grim situation," the bench referred the matter to the CJI for appropriate directions, resulting in the registration of the present proceedings.

Also read: NCLT clears Bhutani Infra's Entertainment City stake buy over Unitech objections

The April 29 judgment noted that 383 applications seeking approval of resolution plans were pending before the NCLT, with delays ranging from 48 days to 738 days, and in some instances extending to nearly four years.

The bench had observed that such prolonged delays defeat the very purpose of the IBC by undermining its objective of ensuring time-bound insolvency resolution, preserving asset value and promoting economic efficiency.