No Right to Be Heard in Transfer Application if Not a Party | NCLAT

Case Details: Imbulle Realtors (P.) Ltd. v. Sanjeev Kumar, Director (Power Suspended) of Realanchor Developers (P.) Ltd. - [2025] 176 taxmann.com 668 (NCLAT-New Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson, N. Seshasayee, Judicial Member & Arun Baroka, Technical Member
• Suhail Dutt, Sr. Adv., Vikas Tiwari & Kumar Deepraj, Advs. for the Appellant.
• Krishnendu Dutta, Sr. Adv., Palash S. Singhai, Harsh Gurbani, Harshal Sareen, Abhishek Anand, Karan Kohli & Ms Ridhima Mehrotra, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, CIRP was initiated against the corporate debtor, and the appellant filed its claim in the CIRP of the corporate debtor. Meanwhile, a settlement was entered into between the suspended director and the original creditors, and IRP later filed a section 12A application, but delays followed due to bench reconstitution.

The Respondent, a suspended director of the corporate debtor, filed an application seeking the transfer of the company petition to a bench that had previously heard the matter. The Transfer Application was heard by the President of the NCLT and, by an impugned order, was allowed.

The appellant filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the President of the NCLT on the ground that in the Transfer Application, the appellant, being also a stakeholder, was required to be heard, and the order passed by the President was in violation of the principle of natural justice since the appellant was not given an opportunity.

It was noted that the appeal against the order passed by the President of the NCLT in the exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, was not maintainable under section 61 of the IBC. Still, in view of the provisions of section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, an appeal against an order passed by the President under Rule 16(d) was fully maintainable under section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013.

NCLAT Held

The NCLAT held that since the appellant was not a party to proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, it was not a necessary party in the Transfer Application and was not required to be heard by the President.

Further, the NCLAT held that since no grounds had been made out in the appeal to interfere with the order passed by the President of NCLT, the appeal deserved to be dismissed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of NCLT- Delhi in TA (IBC) – 16(PB)/2025, dated 09.05.2025 (para 24) affirmed.

List of Cases Referred to

• Glass Trust Company LLC v. BYJU Raveendran [2024] 167 taxmann.com 619/[2025] 187 SCL 14 (SC) (para 2)
• Hiren Anand Agarwal v. National Company Law Tribunal [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 555 of 2025, dated 3-4-2025] (para 20)
• Anuj Kumar Jain, Ex-Director, P.K. Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakesh Bhatia (Liquidator of P.K. Industries Pvt. Ltd.) [Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 365 of 2022, dated 5-4-2022] (para 21).