The Central government has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Gujarat High Court judgment that held the President of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) cannot administratively transfer cases from one Bench to another outside the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Bench.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohan has issued notice in the matter and sought a response from ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Private Limited, formerly known as Essar Steel India Limited.

The dispute centres around the interpretation of Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which authorises the NCLT President to “transfer any case from one Bench to another Bench when the circumstances so warrant.”

The Gujarat High Court had earlier ruled that this provision does not empower the NCLT President to transfer matters beyond a Bench’s territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, it quashed administrative orders transferring cases involving ArcelorMittal from the NCLT Ahmedabad Bench to the NCLT Mumbai Bench.

Challenging the decision, the Centre argued before the Supreme Court that the High Court wrongly imported a territorial restriction into Rule 16(d), despite no such limitation being expressly provided.

According to the Union government, the NCLT functions as a single national tribunal operating under a unified administrative structure. It contended that individual Benches exist merely for administrative convenience and to improve access to justice, and are not intended to create rigid geographical boundaries.

The Centre further submitted that Rule 16(d) permits inter-Bench transfers across the country whenever circumstances necessitate such action.

It also highlighted the practical reasons behind the transfer orders, noting that two NCLT Benches in Ahmedabad had recused themselves from hearing the ArcelorMittal matters. In such a situation, administrative intervention became necessary to ensure continuity of proceedings and avoid a judicial vacuum.

The plea warned that if the High Court’s interpretation is upheld, simultaneous recusals or vacancies at a particular Bench could halt adjudication altogether.

The dispute stems from proceedings involving Essar Steel/ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel. An NCLT Ahmedabad Bench recused itself from the matter on January 9, 2024, followed by another Ahmedabad Bench in April 2024. Subsequently, the NCLT President transferred the cases to the Mumbai Bench through administrative orders dated June 6, 2024, and February 10, 2025.

ArcelorMittal challenged both the recusal and transfer orders before the Gujarat High Court.

Justice Niral R Mehta set aside both the recusal orders and the transfer orders, holding that the NCLT President lacked administrative authority to alter or expand the territorial jurisdiction of any Bench.

Later, in February 2026, a Division Bench of the High Court directed the Centre to approach the Supreme Court, noting that a similar issue was already pending before the apex court.

The Union government has now formally filed its appeal. The Supreme Court had, in January 2026, agreed to examine the same legal question in a separate plea filed by Anita Rayapatti arising from the same judgment.

ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel was represented by Advocate Ruby Singh Ahuja, Senior Partner at Karanjawala & Co