Transfer orders by NCLT President are appealable under Companies Act, while non-parties need not be heard before administrative transfer.

A transfer order passed by the NCLT President under Rule 16(d) was held appealable under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, because the President acts as the Tribunal under Sections 419(3) and 421, but not under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which applies only to orders under Part II of the Code. The challenge based on natural justice also failed: the appellant was not a party to the transfer application, only the interim resolution professional was heard, and the appellant's claim had not yet been admitted. The transfer order was therefore upheld, without any view on the merits of the withdrawal application or the pending claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal against a transfer order passed by the President of the National Company Law Tribunal under Rule 16(d) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 was maintainable under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013; (ii) Whether the transfer order was vitiated for want of hearing to the appellant or for non-impleadment of the appellant in the transfer application.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal against a transfer order passed by the President of the National Company Law Tribunal under Rule 16(d) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 was maintainable under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013

Analysis: Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides an appeal against an order of the adjudicating authority under Part II of the Code. A transfer order passed by the President in exercise of power under Rule 16(d) is not an order under Part II of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. However, by virtue of Sections 419(3) and 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, the President acts as the Tribunal and an order passed by the President is appealable as an order of the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, but it was maintainable under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer order was vitiated for want of hearing to the appellant or for non-impleadment of the appellant in the transfer application

Analysis: The transfer application impleaded only the interim resolution professional, who was heard before the President. The appellant itself pleaded that it was not a party to the proceedings and had only filed an application for recognition of its claim. On those facts, the appellant was not treated as a necessary party to the transfer application. The order also reflected that the transfer was made because the matter had earlier been heard by a particular bench and, in the interests of orderly disposal, was directed to be placed before the same bench. The challenge based on natural justice was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The transfer order was not vitiated for want of hearing to the appellant or for non-impleadment of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The transfer order was upheld and the appeal was dismissed, with no opinion expressed on the merits of the withdrawal application under Section 12A or on the appellant's pending claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer order passed by the President of the National Company Law Tribunal under Rule 16(d) is appealable as an order of the Tribunal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, and a person who is not a party to the transfer proceedings and whose claim is not yet admitted cannot insist on being heard before such administrative transfer order is made.

---