NCLAT

Dear friends

NCLAT benches within next 6 months in every place where NCLT sits..either circuit benches or permanent one .

.par 15 of the order

[1/25, 19:40] CA Venkata Siva Kumar: NCLAT BENCH ONLY AT DELHI.
15. It has been argued by Shri Rohatgi that as per our judgment in
Madras Bar Association (II) (supra), paragraph 123 states as follows:
―123. We shall first examine the validity of Section 5 of
the NTT Act. The basis of challenge to the above
provision has already been narrated by us while
dealing with the submissions advanced on behalf of
the petitioners with reference to the fourth contention.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,
Section 5(2) of the NTT Act mandates that NTT would
ordinarily have its sittings in the National Capital
Territory of Delhi. According to the petitioners, the
aforesaid mandate would deprive the litigating
assessee the convenience of approaching the
jurisdictional High Court in the State to which he
belongs. An assessee may belong to a distant/remote
State, in which eventuality, he would not merely have
to suffer the hardship of travelling a long distance, but
such travel would also entail uncalled for financial
expense. Likewise, a litigant assessee from a far-flung
State may find it extremely difficult and inconvenient to
identify an Advocate who would represent him before
NTT, since the same is mandated to be ordinarily
located in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Even
though we have expressed the view, that it is open to
Parliament to substitute the appellate jurisdiction
vested in the jurisdictional High Courts and constitute
courts/tribunals to exercise the said jurisdiction, we are
of the view,
: alternative court/tribunal, it is imperative for the
legislature to ensure that redress should be available
with the same convenience and expediency as it was
prior to the introduction of the newly created
court/tribunal. Thus viewed, the mandate incorporated
in Section 5(2) of the NTT Act to the effect that the
sittings of NTT would ordinarily be conducted in the
National Capital Territory of Delhi, would render the
remedy inefficacious, and thus unacceptable in law.
The instant aspect of the matter was considered by
this Court with reference to the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 in S.P. Sampath Kumar case [S.P.
Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 124 :
(1987) 2 ATC 82] and L. Chandra Kumar case [L.
Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 :
1997 SCC (L&S) 577], wherein it was held that
permanent Benches needed to be established at the
seat of every jurisdictional High Court. And if that was
not possible, at least a Circuit Bench required to be
established at every place where an aggrieved party
could avail of his remedy. The position on the above
issue is no different in the present controversy. For the
above reason, Section 5(2) of the NTT Act is in clear
breach of the law declared by this Court.‖
(emphasis supplied)
16. The learned Attorney General has assured us that this judgment
will be followed and Circuit Benches will be established as soon as it is
practicable. In this view of the matter, we record this submission and
direct the Union of India to set up Circuit Benches of the NCLAT within
a period of 6 months from today.
THE TRIBUNALS ARE FUNCTIONING UNDER THE WRONG MINIS