SC transfers case from NCLAT Chennai to Delhi after judicial member claims interference by retired HC judge

The Supreme Court on Friday transferred the commercial dispute pending before the Chennai bench of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to the principal bench in Delhi after a judicial member of the Chennai Bench alleged that he was approached by a retired High Court judge to favour one of the parties to the case. Taking note of the sensational claim, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India-designate Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi transferred the case in which the said judicial member has recused himself from the hearing. Advocate Prashant Bhushan claimed before the top court that according to his information, he message came from the Chief Justice of a high court to the judicial member of the company's appellate tribunal. The Supreme Court had on August 27 ordered an inquiry into the claims of a judicial member of the NCLAT of being approached by one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary for a favourable order in a case which was pending before the bench. The top court decided to order an inquiry after getting to know about the incident on August 26. Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, the judicial member of the Chennai-based NCLAT, alleged that he was being approached by a member of the higher judiciary for a favourable order in a case which was pending before him. We are anguished to observe, that one of us, Member (Judicial), has been approached by one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary of this country for seeking an order in favour of a particular party, said the order, a copy of which was accessed by TNIE, passed by the two-member bench of the NCLAT headed by Justice Sharma on August 13. The other technical member of the NCLAT Chennai's two-judge bench was Jatindranath Swain. The NCLAT bench was hearing an appeal filed by A S Reddy, suspended director of Hyderabad-based KLSR Infratech, which is facing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The judgment in the matter was reserved by the insolvency appellate tribunal on June 18, 2025 after completion of hearing. It also granted seven days time to both parties to file written submissions, if any.