'Is A Competent Officer Available At Allahabad Bench?': High Court Asks UOI On NCLT Joint Scrutiny Order

[Update to Readers: While the oral observations during the open court hearing earlier in the day indicated that the Court stayed the impugned notification, the written order uploaded subsequently does not record an interim stay. Instead, the Court has sought instructions from the Union of India and posted the matter for April 24.The article has been amended to reflect the HC order.]

The Allahabad High Court today sought instructions from the Union of India regarding the order of the Registrar, NCLT Principal Bench, New Delhi, to the extent it sought joint scrutiny of petitions/applications filed in NCLT Allahabad by NCLT Allahabad and the Principal Bench at New Delhi.

While the counsel for the Union of India sought time to obtain instructions, the bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Indrajeet Shukla asked the Additional Solicitor General SP Singh to obtain instructions "as to whether there is an officer available at NCLT, Allahabad Bench, competent enough, to do the scrutiny of the petitions or otherwise the reasons and circumstances for passing the order impugned".

A writ petition was filed by the Company Law Tribunal Bar Association, an association of members of lawyers practising before NCLT Allahabad, challenging the public notice dated 27th February, 2026, by which the Registrar of the Principal Bench at New Delhi had directed that the scrutiny of petitions/ applications filed at NCLT Allahabad will be jointly done by the Principal Bench and Allahabad Bench.

It was pleaded that as a result of this notice, the physical copies were being filed at Allahabad, whereas the online filing was done at the NCLT Principal Bench. It was argued that since February, the Registry of the Principal Bench had not cleared defects in the petitions/applications filed and had been continuously raising frivolous defects in any document filed.

It was argued that NCLT Allahabad was singled out in the order, as the petitioners pointed out that the very same public notice clearly stipulates that matters filed before the NCLT Jaipur Bench shall be scrutinised by the Registry of the Jaipur Bench itself.

During oral arguments, the Court questioned the counsel for the respondent as to why such petitions should be scrutinised by any other bench other than NCLT Allahabad.

Noting that the matter requires consideration, the Court has adjourned the matter to the day after tomorrow, i.e., April 24.