National Company Law Tribunal

What is 'NCLT'

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) serves as a quasi-judicial body in India dedicated to adjudicating matters related to Indian companies, including corporate disputes, insolvency proceedings, mergers, amalgamations, and winding-up processes. It replaces multiple prior forums like the Company Law Board (CLB), Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), and Appellate Authority on Insolvency (AAIFR), centralising adjudication for efficiency and expertise in corporate disputes. Operational since June 1, 2016, with a Principal Bench in New Delhi and 15 regional benches covering all states and union territories, NCLT ensures time-bound resolutions through judicial and technical members. Established to enhance efficiency in corporate governance and resolution, NCLT operates with benches across major cities, ensuring accessible adjudication for company-related issues nationwide

The Companies Act of 2013, which succeeded the Companies Act of 1956, made significant changes to the regulatory framework that governs companies in India, one of which was the induction of NCLT. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued a notice on June 1, 2016, announcing the establishment of NCLT and its appellate authority, National Company Law Tribunal (NCLAT). These Tribunals were established as a result of the authority granted by Section 408 of the Companies Act, 2013.

At the time of its Constitution in June 2016, approximately 25,000 pending proceedings from the High Courts, the Company Law Board, the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction were transferred to the new NCLT benches.

The Supreme Court, aiming to alleviate the burden on regular courts to hear company and corporate law matters, upheld the establishment of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) under the Companies Act, 2013, in the cases of Union of India vs. R. Gandhi and Ors. and Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India & Anr. This decision acknowledged concerns that transferring judicial functions to tribunals might undermine their independence from executive influence but ultimately permitted their formation.

Official Definition of 'NCLT'

'NCLT' as defined in legislation

Companies Act, 2013

Section 408- The Central Government shall, by notification, constitute, with effect from such date as may be specified therein, a Tribunal to be known as the National Company Law Tribunal consisting of a President and such number of Judicial and Technical members, as the Central Government may deem necessary, to be appointed by it by notification, to exercise and discharge such powers and functions as are, or may be, conferred on it by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Section 60- Adjudicating authority for corporate persons—(1) The Adjudicating Authority, in relation to insolvency resolution and liquidation for corporate persons including corporate debtors and personal guarantors thereof shall be the National Company Law Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the corporate person is located.

The Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008

Sec 2(u)- "Tribunal" means the National Company Law Tribunal constituted under section 408 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013).

NCLT Rules, 2016

Sec 2(7)- “Bench” means a Bench of the Tribunal constituted under section 419 of the Act and includes Circuit Benches constituted by the President with prior approval of the Central Government to sit at such other geographical locations as may be necessary having regard to requirements;

Legal provision(s) relating to 'NCLT'

Constituting Act

The Central Government has constituted the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under section 408 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) w.e.f. 01st June 2016.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in India was established by the Companies Act of 2013. Sections 408 of the Companies Act of 2013 are specifically relevant to the establishment and operation of the NCLT. These sections authorise the Central Government to establish the NCLT and define its powers and jurisdiction over corporate disputes, insolvency, and other company law issues.

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction under Companies Law, 2013

Section 280 of Companies Act, 2013, specifically addresses the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in resolving suits, proceedings, or claims involving a company.

The Tribunal shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, have jurisdiction to entertain, or dispose of,— (a) any suit or proceeding by or against the company; (b) any claim made by or against the company, including claims by or against any of its branches in India; (c) any application made under section 233; (d) any scheme submitted under section 262; (e) any question of priorities or any other question whatsoever, whether of law or facts, including those relating to assets, business, actions, rights, entitlements, privileges, benefits, duties, responsibilities, obligations or in any matter arising out of, or in relation to winding up of the company, whether such suit or proceeding has been instituted, or is instituted, or such claim or question has arisen or arises or such application has been made or is made or such scheme has been submitted, or is submitted, before or after the order for the winding up of the company is made.

Section 430 of the Companies Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of matters over which NCLT or NCLAT has jurisdiction, thereby making NCLT the exclusive forum for such company‑law disputes.

NCLT is also  empowered to consider class action suits, enabling collective legal action either by shareholders or depositors against a company for perceived wrongful acts. This provision holds significance for empowering minority stakeholders, fostering corporate governance, and enhancing transparency within companies. The Companies Act of 2013 introduces a class action suit provision under Section 245.

Jurisdiction under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Section 60 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is the primary provision conferring jurisdiction on the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) as the Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons, including corporate debtors and personal guarantors to corporate debtors. Subsection 60(1) designates NCLT jurisdiction for insolvency resolution and liquidation proceedings at the location of the corporate debtor's registered office, while subsection 60(5) provides residuary powers through a non-obstante clause, empowering NCLT to entertain applications or proceedings by or against the corporate debtor, claims involving its Indian subsidiaries, and questions of law or fact arising from or relating to such insolvency or liquidation processes. This establishes NCLT's exclusive forum for corporate insolvency matters, subject to limits ensuring it does not encroach on unrelated disputes.

Jurisdiction under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993

While usually under DRT jurisdiction, NCLT may have limited overlapping powers especially where insolvency overlaps.

Governance Structure

The National Company Law Tribunal is constituted of a President, Judicial and Technical Members as prescribed in Sec 408 of Companies Act, 2013. The Central Government appoints the Tribunal's President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

Provisions relating to members of the tribunal

Qualifications of Members

Under Section 409 of the companies act, 2013  Qualification of President and Members of Tribunal is provided-

The president of NCLT must be a judge who has served a minimum of five years as a judge of a High Court.

A person shall be qualified for appointment as a Judicial Member if he is:

• A judge serving or having served as a judge of the High Court, or
• A District Judge having served for a minimum of five years, or
• An advocate having ten years of practicing experience.

A person shall be qualified for appointment as a Technical Member if he-

• For at least fifteen years been a member of the Indian Corporate Law Service or Indian Legal Service [and has been holding the rank of Secretary or Additional Secretary to the Government of India], or
• In practice as a chartered accountant for at least fifteen years, or
• In practice as a cost accountant for at least fifteen years, or
• In practice as a company secretary for at least fifteen years, or
• Is a person of proven ability, integrity and standing having special knowledge and professional experience of not less than fifteen years in industrial finance, industrial management, industrial reconstruction, investment and accountancy.
• Is, or has been, for at least five years, a presiding officer of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947).

Appointment of Members

The procedure for the appointment of members is outlined in Section 412 of the Companies Act.

1. The appointment of the President of the Tribunal, as well as the Chairperson and Judicial Members of the Appellate Tribunal, will be made following consultations with the Chief Justice of India.

2. Members of the Tribunal and Technical Members of the Appellate Tribunal will be appointed based on the recommendations of a Selection Committee. This committee comprises of:

  a. The Chief Justice of India or their nominee as Chairperson.

  b. A senior Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of a High Court as a Member.

  c. The Secretary in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs as a Member.

  d. The Secretary in the Ministry of Law and Justice as a Member.

  In case of a tie-in vote during the Selection Committee's meeting, the Chairperson holds a casting vote.

The Secretary of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs will serve as the Convener of the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee has the authority to establish its procedure for recommending individuals under subsection. The absence of a member or any defect in the constitution of the Selection Committee does not render the appointment of Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal Members invalid.

Term of Office

Section 413 Term of office of President, chairperson and other Members

(1) The President and every other Member of the Tribunal shall hold office as such for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office, but shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years.

(2) A Member of the Tribunal shall hold office as such until he attains,— (a) in the case of the President, the age of sixty-seven years; (b) in the case of any other Member, the age of sixty-five years: Provided that a person who has not completed fifty years of age shall not be eligible for appointment as Member: Provided further that the Member may retain his lien with his parent cadre or Ministry or Department, as the case may be, while holding office as such for a period not exceeding one year.

Salary and Allowance of member

Section 414 talks about Salary, allowances and other terms and conditions of service of Members.—

The salary, allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the Members of the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall be such as may be prescribed:

Provided that neither the salary and allowances nor the other terms and conditions of service of the Members shall be varied to their disadvantage after their appointment.

Removal And Resignation

The resignation and removal provisions for members of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) are outlined in Sections 416 and 417 of the Companies Act, 2013 respectively.

Section 416: Resignation

Any member, including the President, Chairperson, or Member, has the option to resign by submitting a hand written notice to the Central Government. Upon receiving the resignation notice, the member will continue to hold office for three months, or until the appointment of a successor or the expiration of the term, whichever comes first.

Section 417: Removal

The Central Government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, has the authority to remove the President, Chairperson, or any Member of the NCLT based on specific grounds. These grounds include adjudication as insolvent, conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude, physical or mental incapacity, acquisition of interests likely to prejudice their functions, or abuse of position prejudicial to public interest. Grounds 2 to 5 require a reasonable opportunity for the individual to be heard before removal.

For removal on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity, an inquiry is conducted by a Supreme Court Judge nominated by the Chief Justice of India, following a reference by the Central Government. The affected individual is informed of the charges and given an opportunity to respond. The Central Government, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of India, may suspend the member during the inquiry until a decision is reached based on the Supreme Court Judge's report. Rules for such inquiries are to be established by the Central Government in consultation with the Supreme Court.

Provisions relating to NCLT Rules, 2016

NCLT Rules, 2016 that are important for the purpose of understanding NCLT are provided in the following data-

Part III – Institution of Proceedings and Issue of Process (Rules 20-33)

Part III of the NCLT Rules, 2016 lays down how proceedings are formally initiated and how parties are brought before the Tribunal. Every matter must start with a properly drafted petition or application containing material facts, a clear cause of action, the reliefs sought, and supporting documents, along with an affidavit verifying the facts. The Registry scrutinizes the filing, points out defects if any, and allows them to be cured. Only after this scrutiny is the matter registered and given a case number, marking the formal institution of proceedings.

Once registered, the Tribunal fixes a hearing date and ensures proper service of notice on all necessary parties through various modes including post, courier, email, or substituted service if required. Proper service is essential to satisfy principles of natural justice. At this stage, the Tribunal also has the power to grant interim or ad-interim relief to protect the subject matter from being frustrated, especially in urgent corporate or insolvency matters. It may also issue summons to parties or witnesses and call for documents to aid effective fact-finding. In cases where service fails despite due efforts, the Tribunal may allow substituted service or proceed ex parte, while still safeguarding fairness and natural justice.

Part IV – General Procedure (Rules 34-59)

Part IV of the NCLT Rules, 2016 deals with the general procedure followed by the Tribunal after a matter is instituted. The most important feature is that the NCLT is not strictly bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and instead functions on the principles of natural justice, with the power to regulate its own procedure. This gives the Tribunal flexibility to conduct proceedings in a speedy, practical, and less technical manner, which is crucial for effective resolution of corporate and insolvency matters.

It also lays down key rules regarding appearance and representation of parties through advocates and other authorized professionals. The Tribunal controls the conduct of proceedings by regulating timelines, managing hearings, granting or refusing adjournments, and ensuring procedural discipline. It has the power to conduct hearings in open court or in camera, pass appropriate orders including costs and directions for compliance, and dismiss or restore matters in cases of default.

Additionally, Part IV gives the Tribunal wide powers relating to evidence, such as calling for documents, permitting inspection, accepting evidence on affidavit, and summoning witnesses. It also ensures continuity by allowing substitution of legal representatives, amendment of pleadings, and smooth continuation of cases despite changes in the composition of the Bench. Importantly, the Tribunal is vested with inherent powers to pass necessary orders to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its process.

'NCLT' as defined in Official Document(s)

Establishment of NCLT Benches (Notification No. S.O. 1935(E), dated 1st June 2016 (MCA))

The NCLT and NCLAT were established under Sections 408 and 410 of the Companies Act, 2013 through the three notifications dated June 1, 2016, issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for this purpose:

• Notification constituting the National Company Law Tribunal and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal under Sections 408 and 410 respectively of the Companies Act, 2013
• Commencement Notification under Section 1 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Notification constituting the Benches of the National Company Law Tribunal
• Transfer of matters or proceedings or cases pending before the Company Law Board to the National Company Law Tribunal.

'NCLT' as defined in Official Government Report

Justice Eradi Committee (1999)

The Government of India decided to constitute a Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice V Balakrishna Eradi consisting of experts to examine the existing law relating to winding up proceedings of companies in order to remodel it in line with the latest developments and innovations in the corporate law and governance and to suggest reforms in the procedure at various stages followed in the insolvency proceedings of companies to avoid unnecessary delays in tune with the international practice in this field. In Chapter- 7 (Suggestions and Recommendations of the Committee), the Committee recommended that the Provisions of Part VII of the Companies Act, 1956, be amended to include the provisions for setting up of a National Tribunal 'which will have

(a) the jurisdiction and power presently exercised by Company Law Board under the Companies Act, 1956;

(b) the power to consider rehabilitation and revival of companies - a mandate presently entrusted to Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR)/ Appellate Authority for Industrial and Finance Reconstruction (AAFIR) under Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 (SICA);

(c) the jurisdiction and power relating to winding up of companies presently vested in the High Courts. In view of the above recommendations Article 323B of the Constitution should be amended to set up the National Tribunal. SICA should be repealed and the Companies Act, 1956 be amended accordingly (para 7.1).

The Justice Eradi Committee Report also outlines other specifics of the National Tribunal such as its composition, procedure of liquidation, benches and powers of the liquidators. (para 7.1- 7.8).

2002 Amendment Act

In furtherance to the recommendations of Justice Eradi Committee, the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 (2002 Amendment Act) vide insertion of new Parts IB and IC provided the provisions for setting up of NCLT and NCLAT to replace the existing Company Law Board (CLB) and for transfer of all matters or proceedings or cases pending before the CLB to the NCLT and to dispose off such cases in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the 2002 Amendment Act.

However, owing to Constitutional challenges, the provisions of the 2002 Amendment could not be notified.

Justice JJ Irani Committee (2005)

The Justice JJ Irani Committee in its Expert Report on Company Law published in May 2005 also expressed its hope that the NCLT that was envisaged to be constituted as per the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 would be constituted speedily (para 24.1 of Chapter XIII) and that it should have a “general, non-intrusive and supervisory role” in the liquidation and rehabilitation process (para 24.2 of Chapter XIII) and should adopt a commercial approach to dispute resolution in a time bound manner.

Another interesting recommendation of the Justice Irani Committee Report is to provide it with criminal Jurisdiction (para 24 of Chapter XII)  while the NCLT was envisaged as a forum to be headed by a person with judicial qualifications not less than that of a High Court Judge. Its jurisdiction would extend to civil remedies to company law issues referred to it. However, in order to enable the speedy imposition of penalties in respect of criminal offences, the possibility of vesting certain specified benches of the NCLT with criminal jurisdiction should also be examined. Such benches may comprise members having judicial background only. The process would be subject to appeal to the NCLAT (Appellate Body) which is in any case envisaged to be headed by a person who has been Chief Justice of a High Court or a Justice of the Supreme Court.

'NCLT' as defined in case law(s)

First Constitutional Challenge (2004-2010)

The  Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 was challenged by the Madras Bar Association at the High Court of Madras which gave its judgement in R. Gandhi v Union of India in 2004, and on Appeal, its Constitutional Validity was finally decided by a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the 2010 case Union of India v R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association. In this case, while the legislative competence of Parliament to create the NCLT and NCLAT was upheld by the Supreme Court, certain provisions related to the structure of the NCLT and NCLAT proposed by the 2002 Amendment Act were held to be unconstitutional.

The Government was required to make some amendments (such as selection of members, tenure, qualifications etc) to the 2002 Amendment Act to ensure that the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 as amended by the 2002 Act were in line with the Constitution.

However, despite the 2010 Judgement of the Supreme Court upholding the Constitutional validity of the NCLT and NCLAT, they were not established. Thereafter, the Parliament of India passed the Companies Act, 2013.

Second Constitutional Challenge, 2015

The Constitutional validity of the provisions related to NCLT and NCLAT in the Companies Act, 2013 were again challenged by the Madras Bar Association, and the matter was conclusively decided by a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Madras Bar Association v Union of India. Like its 2010 judgement, the Supreme Court again upheld the constitutional validity of the NCLT and NCLAT. It also held that the Indian Constitution allowed the legislature to establish tribunals as alternatives to Courts, provided that the tribunal so established has the qualitative trappings and competence of the Court sought to be replaced. Therefore, the Court ordered some provisions relating to the qualification of technical members to be amended to be in conformity with the Constitution and the prescribed guidelines of the judgment.

Technological Transformation and Initiatives

Digitisation

Main Website

The main website of the National Company Law Tribunal provides extensive information about the tribunal’s functioning. It provides information about it’s establishment, and governance procedures as well as structure. It also gives avenue to check online the status of cases ongoing, history, and any secondary legislation related to the operation of the tribunal. Further the data about disposal of cases is also linked to, divided according to the act under which the cases were disposed of. The procedure for proceedings under the RTI (Right to Information) Act, details of all the benches in the tribunal, appellate authorities, and E-filing procedures are also available.

NCLT Website Welcome Page

E-Filing

There is provision for filing petition or appeal cases online on the website’s e-filing portal. The persons or representatives filing the case must register on the website first, and follow the procedure provided according to the type of petitioner. Depending on the type of case, the petitioner/appellant must choose the right forum, i.e. NCLT or NCLAT. After which the requisite details must be provided for the case. The website provides the petitioner with information regarding the status of the case, listing date, and any relevant orders by the tribunal. Similarly, it also allows filing applications pertaining to the cases. NCLT also checks defects in online filings, after which the petitioner or application has an option to re-file a case by editing it according to the objections raised. An extensive manual is available for the procedure with all the requisite details.

NCLT E-filling Page

E-cause List

NCLT provides online the cause list that is taken up by the tribunal benches which is updated daily (https://nclt.gov.in/all-couse-list). The PDF document first mentions the Bench, the date of the proceedings to be taken up, and the mode of hearing, i.e. whether it’s physical or virtual hearing. In case of virtual hearings, the link for the video conference is provided. The coram of the bench is provided right before the details of the causes. The Cause list itself specifies the petition/appeal or the application no, the applicable act and section, the name of the parties, and the counsel for both parties.

Case Status

The NCLT website provides for checking the status of a case. One must search according to either the filing number, case number, party name, or the advocate name applicable to the case, then provide the bench and other applicable information. There is also a public repository of cases filed which can be accessed through another link which provides case details with minimal information of bench and the time range, unlike the earlier repository which requires specific knowledge of the case.

Tribunal Orders

The orders directed by the NCLT can be accessed through the link provided for the same. The orders have to be searched according to either the date of the order or of the judgment, the case no, the petitioner or advocates name. One can also search for orders delivered by a particular judge.

Appearance of 'NCLT' in Database

Official Database

NCLT Official Portal

Government maintained web database at case status provides very detail about any case listed. Supports searches by filing number, diary number, case number, party/advocate name, or date range across 16 benches (e.g., Principal Bench Delhi coded as "NCLT, New Delhi Bench"). Data fields: Filing No. (e.g., 01/123/IB/2025), Case Number (CP(IB) No. 456/ND/2024), Status (Listed/Disposed/Defective), Party Details (Petitioner/Respondent), Registration No., Hearing Dates, Orders/Judgments (PDF links). Case History module shows full proceedings, defective dates, and uploads at https://efiling.nclt.gov.in/casehistorybeforeloginmenutrue.drt

MCA Annual Report (2023-24)

Describes NCLT as Adjudicating Authority (AA), namely, NCLT acts as the forum where corporate insolvency is heard and Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) where individual insolvencies are heard.

Source- MCA Annual Report 2023-24

Parliamentary Questions

Lok Sabha — Unstarred Question (answered 18 July 2022)

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has been established with one Principal Bench in New Delhi and 15 other benches across India, making a total of 16 benches. The Amravati bench in Andhra Pradesh, located at APIIC Towers, IT Park in Mangalagiri, is functional. As of July 18, 2022, there were 30 Member vacancies and 270 vacancies for officers and staff across all NCLT benches. As of May 31, 2022, about 20,963 cases were pending before the NCLT. To reduce this pendency, the Government announced five new benches including Amravati in 2018-19, appointed 20 new Members in 2021, conducts regular capacity-building colloquiums for Members, and implemented the e-Court Project via the National Informatics Centre (NIC) across all benches to improve efficiency and case disposal.

Lok Sabha — Unstarred Question No. 2049 (answered 13 March 2023)

The Government is establishing NCLT and NCLAT benches in phases based on workload, with one Principal Bench and 15 additional NCLT benches currently operational and no new benches proposed. As of 31 January 2023, NCLT had 21,205 pending cases: 12,963 under IBC, 1,181 for mergers/amalgamations, and 7,061 other matters (company-wise details unavailable). By 31 December 2022, IBBI data indicated 611 CIRPs resolved yielding ₹2.44 lakh crore for creditors, out of 6,199 CIRPs initiated since 2016, with no specific company-wise NPA realizations or corporate debtors under resolution provided.

Rajya Sabha — Unstarred Question No. 1654 (answered 6 August 2024)

Question topic:

As of 30 June 2024, NCLT had 19,770 pending cases. Pendency stems from case complexity, high interlocutory applications, appellate stays, evidence delays, stakeholder non-cooperation, and adjournments. Mitigation efforts include adding 5 NCLT benches (2018–19) plus Chennai NCLAT bench, capacity-building colloquiums, e-Court Project rollout, and member appointments: NCLT (1 President +20 Members in 2021, 14 in 2022, 20 in 2023), NCLAT (1 Chairperson in 2021, 5 Members in 2022, 3 in 2023; 4 in 2024), with vacancies filling ongoing.

Lok Sabha — Unstarred Question No. 3762 (answered 24 March 2025)

As of March 2025, NCLT has 2 vacant Judicial Member posts and 1 vacant Technical Member post, with 30 courts operational (26 full-day, 4 half-day). No proposal exists to add NCLT benches, as vacancy filling continues ongoing; pendency rises not solely from vacancies but due to case complexity, evidence issues, interlocutory applications, higher court stays, and stakeholder delays, with no direct insolvency impact attribution or backlog assessment detailed. No disciplinary actions against any former/current NCLT President/Member. Efficiency measures include e-court/hybrid systems, capacity-building colloquiums, infrastructure upgrades, and vacancy filling efforts.

Lok Sabha — Unstarred Question No. 1151 (answered 28 July 2025)

NCLT operates transparently in compliance with Central Vigilance Commission guidelines. A single case from the Mumbai Bench is under CBI investigation for alleged corruption involving individual officials, with NCLT fully cooperating; these pertain to personal conduct, not institutional integrity. No Transparency International report mentions charges against NCLT.

Video Conferencing/Virtual Hearing

On 31 October 2023, NCLT issued a circular directing that no bench shall deny access to the facility of video-conferencing or hybrid mode hearings for any bar member or litigant who desires it.

Additionally, a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for physical and virtual hearings dated 26 Feb 2021 includes provisions such as parties desiring virtual hearing should send application with item number to concerned court officer, and may join via video conferencing.

Database maintained by a non-government entity

The State of Tribunals Report in India, 2025- DAKSH

Chapter 3 of the report talks about National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). It provides thorough information about NCLT and its working along with its structure and composition. Apart from this, it also gives us an insight on data till date which speaks to pendency and issues that are faces by NCLT whether that is regarding appointment, extreme number of IAs, etc. The report shows that although the caseload has expanded dramatically, the tribunal still operates with a sanctioned strength of 63 members but only 60 in place as of March 2025, and historically has never reached full capacity. As of March 2025, NCLT was handling 14,961 pending cases, including 7,973 company law matters and 6,988 IBC matters, in addition to an overwhelming 33,061 pending interlocutory applications (IAs)—of which 25,786 were under IBC—illustrating the tribunal’s crippling procedural burden. Case filing and disposal trends reveal chronic pendency: NCLT had 20,671 pending cases as of 30 November 2024, with an 85.2% clearance rate for April–November 2024, though it briefly achieved a clearance rate of 115.5% between January 2023–March 2024, disposing more cases than were filed.

Source: Ministry of Corporate Affairs Annual Reports from 2021-22 to 2024-25

Staffing shortages remain acute, with 434 total staff, of which 382 (88%) are contractual, only 35 permanent, and 17 on deputation, leading to instability, high turnover, and weak administrative continuity.

Source of data: DAKSH, State of Tribunal Report (RTI responses)

The insolvency ecosystem is marked by chronic delays: 91.9% of resolution plans exceed the statutory 180-day period, 208 CIRPs breached the 330-day limit, and during January–March 2025 the average time for approving a resolution plan was 752 days, while liquidation orders took 642 days, far exceeding the legal mandate . Despite delays, NCLT remains central to India’s economic recovery framework—1,288 resolution plans were approved between 2017-18 and 2024-25, with total realisable value of ₹4.43 lakh crore, and annual approvals rising from 19 (2017–18) to 284 (2024–25). The tribunal is also burdened by M&A scrutiny: as of November 2024, 309 merger cases and 53 amalgamation cases were still pending approval, prompting discussion on removing NCLT from the M&A approval pipeline to reduce delays and investor uncertainty.

Research that engages with NCLT

Pulling back the curtain: examining the NCLT through data

In the article, author Smita Mutt explores the functioning of the National Company Law Tribunal. It goes into challenges faced by the tribunal like transparency, scheduling, and case delays. It used empirical analysis to do the analysis and recommend systemic reforms for the same. The issues it identifies are the need to improve the scheduling of members presiding over the cases, the necessity for clear data on disposals, and overall transparency. It also goes into capacity constraints which affect the full functioning of the tribunal.

Estimating Capacity Requirements of the National Company Law Tribunal: Notes from the Field

Susan Thomas and Bhargavi Zaveri Shah in the paper titled "Estimating Capacity Requirements of the National Company Law Tribunal: Notes from the Field" identifies that the chapter in Technology and Analytics for Law and Justice explores the metrics used to examine a court's capacity requirements to argue for the adoption of the Weighted Caseload Method (WCM) framework for the determination. In this case, the aim is to provide a metric for determining what the sanctioned strength of the NCLT tribunal should be, to be able to fulfil its functions. It explores the existing criteria and methods to determine the required sanctioned strength, points out that parameters such as pendency and disposal rates are inadequate in helping determine the required strength, and introduces ‘judge time’ as the alternative parameter.

The understanding is that courts should meet the needs of the people and the sanctioned strength numbers should align with this objective taking into account this quantum. The strength is optimal if it takes into account the future estimate of workload, enables delivery of cases according to expectations, and uses the resources to maintain the strength judicially.

RTI Findings on NCLT/NCLAT Functioning, Vacancies & Transparency

The blogpost titled "RTI Findings on NCLT/NCLAT Functioning, Vacancies & Transparency" highlights Opaque Appointment / Selection Records- The RTI sought certified copies of selection committee file-notes and notifications related to the appointment of Members in NCLT and NCLAT. The reply stated: “No such information is available in material form.” This non-availability of records raises questions regarding the transparency of judicial/technical member appointment processes, potentially affecting public trust in tribunal governance.

Issues and Challenges

Vacancies in NCLT Member Appointments

The NCLT grapples with a critical challenge due to a substantial number of vacancies in member appointments, significantly impacting its functionality. Among the sanctioned 63 positions, including the President, 31 Judicial, and 31 Technical members, an alarming 36% remain vacant or inactive. A DAKSH study analyzing 1,661 cause lists from January to March 2023 revealed a shortfall in the Coram, with only 21 judicial members and 19 technical members in attendance. This shortage leads to unpredictability and chaos for lawyers and litigants across benches, as members must juggle multiple assignments daily, resulting in staggered starting times. Benches like Chennai Bench Court-I and Kolkata Bench Court-II face scheduling challenges, exacerbating the issue. The strain on members is evident, with frequent instances of judicial members appearing in multiple courts on the same day, sometimes without technical members. This situation not only hampers NCLT efficiency but also underscores the urgent need to address vacancies for a smoother tribunal operation and timely resolution of corporate disputes.

Vacancies in Administrative Staff

The NCLT grapples with significant challenges due to administrative staff vacancies across its 15 zones. Of the 20 Joint, Deputy, and Assistant registrars, Bengaluru, Chandigarh, and Guwahati have only Assistant Registrars, potentially impacting case efficiency. New Delhi and Ahmedabad have Joint or Deputy Registrars, while other zones like Chennai and Hyderabad have a mix. Mumbai, despite having five benches and a large caseload, has only one Deputy Registrar, risking operational inefficiencies. The disparities highlight a need for addressing vacancies to ensure equitable administrative support, crucial for the tribunal's smooth functioning and timely case resolution. Addressing these issues is paramount for enhancing overall efficiency and service quality in the NCLT.

Increasing Volume of Filed Matters

An increase in the number of main cases filed and the introduction of interlocutory applications (IAs) have been identified as significant contributors to delayed disposals across various NCLT benches. To analyze this trend, DAKSH utilized the NCLT Case Information System (CIS) to examine the filing patterns of both new cases and interlocutory applications in the New Delhi, Mumbai, and Chennai zones. The examination covered comparable periods from 2020 to 2023, with total filing patterns available from the year 2021 onward due to the mandatory implementation of e-filing in 2020. This data provides insights into the escalating caseload and the growing complexity of matters brought before the NCLT, potentially contributing to challenges in timely case resolution.

Inconsistent Format of Cause List

Mumbai's cause lists pose challenges by grouping Interlocutory Applications (IAs), Compromise Applications (CAs), and Resolution Plans within the same cell, causing difficulty in consumption and tracking. In contrast, Chennai employs a more organized approach, assigning a separate row for each IA or Miscellaneous Application (MA) in the cause list, facilitating easier tracking in complex proceedings. However, the Bangalore bench faces issues with case management tools due to cause list PDF files being presented as images, hindering automated parsing and prompt updates for lawyers. Addressing these formatting challenges in cause lists is crucial for improving clarity, efficiency, and automation in case management processes across NCLT benches.

Way Forward

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) needs more judges and members to handle cases faster because there are a lot of pending cases, around 25,000 by mid-2025. Laws should be made to automatically recruit new members when there are vacancies so that the Tribunal does not remain short-staffed. Payment systems should work smoothly and a biometric system (like fingerprint scanning) should be added to stop fake cases.

There should be special teams in NCLT for different kinds of cases like insolvency and company disputes. These teams need to be trained regularly in technical areas like finance and auditing. The Tribunal should have a strict timetable and penalties if cases are delayed for more than seven days without good reason. Also, tasks like carrying out decisions in insolvency cases should be done by special professionals, so judges can focus on deciding cases.

Laws should be changed to allow NCLT to work with international bodies for cases involving companies from more than one country. Outside of the Tribunal, mediation centers should be set up to settle many disputes without going to court.

In the long run, NCLT should publish annual reports showing how many cases they solved and how money was recovered for creditors. They should also provide ongoing training for members and improve their offices with help from the government and private groups. This will help NCLT become a top court known worldwide for handling company legal issues quickly and fairly. Cooperation between the government and insolvency regulators like IBBI is key to making these changes effective.