National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, Mumbai: The present Transfer Application, TA (Co. Act) 23 of 2026, was filed by Mr. Anil Kumar Singh (Applicant) under Rule 16(d) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (NCLT Rules, 2016), seeking transfer of Amit Singh v. AI NXT Technovations (P) Ltd., CP No. 135(MB)/2026 (Company Petition 2), pending before Court-I, NCLT, Mumbai Bench (Court-I), to Court-III, NCLT, Mumbai Bench (Court-III), where Anil Kumar Singh v. AI NXT Technovations (P) Ltd., CP No. 122(MB)/2026 (Company Petition 1) was pending. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, President, disposed of the application by transferring company petition 2 from Court-III to Court-I, to be heard along with company petition 1 and connected proceedings. The mere fact that one proceeding was instituted earlier could not, by itself, be determinative of the Court before which the connected proceedings ought to continue. The subsequent course of proceedings was also relevant while considering the appropriate forum for transfer. The proceedings before Court-I had subsequently progressed further. Thus, it was appropriate that the connected proceedings from Court-III be transferred to Court-I.
Background:
Company petition 1 was instituted earlier and first came up before Court-III on 5 May 2026 and company petition 2 was instituted thereafter and was first listed before Court-I on 15 May 2026.
The Applicant contended that both proceedings concerned the affairs, management and control of the same company, ie. AI NXT Technovations (P) Ltd., and involved overlapping issues, including the validity of an Extraordinary General Meeting and the Applicant’s removal from the Board. Further contended that the continuation of the two proceedings before different Courts risked conflicting orders and multiplicity of proceedings.
The Respondents opposed the application, contending that the two petitions arose from materially different causes of action and reliefs, and that company petition 1 before Court-I had proceeded substantially further. They relied upon a detailed interim order dated 15-5-2026 passed by Court-I in company petition 1 and the subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto, including Contempt Application No. 11(MB)/2026 (Contempt application) filed by the Respondents under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 before Court-I alleging non-compliance with the interim order. Also, Court-I had appointed an observer and had been monitoring implementation of its directions through the observer’s interim compliance reports and other connected applications.
Issues
1. Whether the power to transfer proceedings under Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 could be exercised to consolidate two company petitions concerning the same company before a single Court.
2. Whether the fact that company petition 2 was instituted earlier and first taken up by Court-III entitled the Applicant to have the connected proceeding, company petition 1, transferred to Court-III.
Analysis, Law, and Decision:
The Tribunal held that the power under Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 was to be exercised in the interest of proper administration of justice. The object of transfer was not merely to accommodate the preference of a party but to ensure that proceedings were dealt with by the Court before which, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the matter could be effectively and appropriately adjudicated.
The Tribunal further noted that there was no dispute that both company petitions concerned the same company and shared a degree of factual and legal overlap.
The Tribunal further held that the mere fact that company petition 1 was instituted earlier and first taken up by Court-III on 5 May 2026 could not, by itself, be determinative of the Court before which the connected proceedings ought to continue. The subsequent course of proceedings was also a relevant consideration in identifying the appropriate forum.
The Tribunal noted that Court-I had taken company petition 1 on 15 May 2026 and thereafter passed interim directions concerning the management and functioning of the company, appointed an observer, received compliance reports, and issued directions from time to time regarding implementation of the interim arrangement. It further noted that contempt application concerning alleged non-compliance with the interim order passed in company petition 1, was pending before Court-I and was directly connected with the orders already passed by it. The Tribunal held that having regard to this more advanced stage of proceedings before Court-I, it was appropriate that the connected proceedings be transferred to Court-I.
Accordingly, the Tribunal transferred company petition 2, pending before Court-III to Court-I to be heard along with company petition 1 and connected proceedings, and directed the Registry to transmit the record of company petition 2, along with all pending applications therein, to Court-I. The Tribunal clarified that the order was confined to the question of transfer and did not express any opinion on the merits of the contentions of the parties in either petition or the connected proceedings.
[Anil Kumar Singh v. AI NXT Technovations (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine NCLT 4980, decided on 25-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Applicant: Tanmay Chatterjee, Advocate
For Respondents: Gaurav Mitra, Sr. Adv., with Mumtaz Bhalla, Manindra Singh, Swarnendu Chatterjee, Prapti Allagh, Suyesha Kalra, Ambareen Katri, Aishwarya Modi and Chanakya Keswani, Advocates
