Transfer applications before NCLT are judicially decided orders, and a Bench may defer hearing to preserve fairness and impartiality.

An order passed by the NCLT President on a party's transfer application under Rule 16(d) is a judicial order, not a mere administrative roster direction, because it is made after notice and hearing before a judicial coram; as a result, it is appealable under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 and not under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal also held that where transfer applications are pending, the concerned NCLT Bench may defer merits hearing to preserve fairness and impartiality, particularly when both sides seek transfer in opposite directions; no jurisdictional error was found in such deferral.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order passed by the President of the NCLT under Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 on a transfer application is an administrative order or a judicial order amenable to appeal; (ii) Whether the NCLT, New Delhi Bench (Court II) was justified in deferring proceedings pending disposal of the transfer applications.

Issue (i): Whether an order passed by the President of the NCLT under Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 on a transfer application is an administrative order or a judicial order amenable to appeal.

Analysis: Rule 16(d) confers power to transfer a case from one Bench to another when circumstances so warrant. The order in question was passed on applications filed by parties and listed before the President as a judicial coram. The Tribunal distinguished between the President's administrative power over roster and listing, and the exercise of power on a party's transfer application, where notice and hearing are required. Relying on the principle that a transfer application made by a party must be decided judicially, the Tribunal held that such an order is not a mere administrative direction. Since the order is an order of the Tribunal under the Companies Act framework, the appeal was held maintainable under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, and not under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Conclusion: The order on the transfer applications was a judicial order of the NCLT and was appealable under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013; an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the NCLT, New Delhi Bench (Court II) was justified in deferring proceedings pending disposal of the transfer applications.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that once transfer applications had been moved by the parties, the Bench was justified in not proceeding with the merits until the transfer process was concluded. The order deferring hearing was treated as a fairness-based procedural measure intended to avoid any doubt about impartiality, especially because both sides had sought transfer in opposite directions. The Tribunal found no jurisdictional error or illegality in the Bench's decision to await the outcome of the transfer applications, and it also held that the sitting-hours objection did not justify interference.

Conclusion: The deferral of proceedings by the NCLT, New Delhi Bench (Court II) was upheld.

Final Conclusion: Both appeals failed on merits, and the impugned orders were left undisturbed, while the merits of the transfer applications themselves were left to be decided separately.

Ratio Decidendi: An order passed on a party's transfer application, after hearing and while the matter is listed before the President as a judicial coram, is a judicial order of the Tribunal and not a mere administrative act; pending such transfer proceedings, the concerned Bench may justifiably defer further hearing to preserve fairness and impartiality.

---