The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) vide a
notification dated 1 June 2016 has constituted the National Company
Law Tribunal (NCLT) and its appellate authority, the National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) with effect from such
The principal bench of the NCLT is to be located at New Delhi,
with ten other benches at New Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai,
Bengaluru, Chandigarh, Allahabad, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad and
Guwahati. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhyay, a retired judge of the Supreme
Court of India has been appointed as Chairperson of the NCLAT and
Justice M.M. Kumar, a retired judge of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court has been appointed as President of the NCLT.
Newly notified provisions
Accompanying the constitution of the NCLT and NCLAT, the MCA has
notified, inter alia, the following provisions of the
Companies Act, 2013 (2013 Act):
Provision under the Companies Act, 1956
Application to NCLT for
relief in cases of oppression
242 (except sub-sections
1(b) and 2(c) & (g))
Powers of NCLT in
relation to an application under Section 241
termination or modification of certain agreements in pursuance of
an order under Section 242
Right to apply under
434(1) (a) & (b) and
Transfer of pending CLB
Dissolution of the Company Law Board
The constitution of the NCLT/NCLAT has resulted in the
dissolution of the Company Law Board (CLB) established under the
Companies Act, 1956, with all pending matters before the CLB being
transferred to the NCLT. Therefore, all disputes (including those
relating to oppression and mismanagement) which were to be
adjudicated upon by the CLB, will now be adjudicated by the NCLT.
Further, going forward, both pending matters and fresh applications
will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the 2013
However, the 2013 Act carries a saving provision for any
decision or order of the CLB that has already been rendered. The
appeal against such orders shall continue to lie with the relevant
High Court (subject to the applicable timelines), and not the
It may be noted that despite the constitution of the NCLT and
NCLAT, the MCA has desisted from notifying the provisions relating
to (i) compromises, arrangements and amalgamations; (ii) revival
and rehabilitation of sick companies; and (iii) winding up of
companies. The objective may be to transfer matters to the
NCLT/NCLAT in a gradual manner, so as to give these new
adjudicatory bodies adequate leeway to tackle any teething
Further, the impending notification of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) will also have an impact on the
legislative framework, with the IBC providing for the repeal of the
2013 Act provisions relating to revival and rehabilitation of sick
companies and undertaking substantial amendments to those relating
to the winding up of companies.
Presently, the scope of the NCLT/NCLAT would remain limited to
adjudicating disputes that would have otherwise been filed before
the CLB, such as those pertaining to, inter alia, oppression and
mismanagement matters. The eventual effect of the constitution of
the NCLT/NCLAT will be to subsume the company jurisdiction of the
The content of this document do not necessarily reflect the
views/position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the
author(s). For any further queries or follow up please contact
Khaitan & Co at firstname.lastname@example.org
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has held that where a Scheme of Amalgamation is executed between two companies registered in two different states [...], then the said two orders are two independent instruments.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs notified on June 5, 2015 that certain provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not apply to private limited companies or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications as directed in the notification.
Whilst trade and barter have existed since early times, the modern practice of forming business relationships through the means of contract has come into existence only since the industrial revolution in the West.
The Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell and Others v. Ramesh Gelli and Others has held officers of private banks to be public servants under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).