Court emphasizes the inadmissibility of writ petitions where alternative remedies exist, dismisses the plea with a Rs. 25,000 penalty for abuse of legal process.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Tejas Karia, dismissed a writ petition filed by Anuj Goyal against the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, and others. The court also imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner for engaging in forum shopping and abusing the process of law. The judgment, delivered on June 17, 2026, underscored the High Court's position on exercising writ jurisdiction only in the absence of adequate alternative remedies.
Anuj Goyal, a homebuyer and member of the Committee of Creditors in the insolvency proceedings of Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, sought directions from the High Court for the urgent hearing and disposal of his applications pending before the NCLT. The petitioner argued that delays in the proceedings could infringe upon the rights of various stakeholders, including homebuyers.
The High Court, however, pointed out that the petitioner had already availed alternative statutory remedies by filing an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against a prior order. The court observed that the petitioner should have approached the President of the NCLT for the urgent listing of his applications instead of filing a writ petition. The court emphasized that such matters lie within the exclusive prerogative of the tribunal's President, especially during vacation periods.
Justice Karia highlighted that the High Court should ordinarily refrain from invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution when proceedings are pending before a competent tribunal. The court further criticized the petitioner for attempting to obtain identical reliefs from multiple legal forums, labeling such conduct as forum shopping.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court found the writ petition to be devoid of merit and dismissed it with costs. The petitioner, Anuj Goyal, has been directed to pay Rs. 25,000 to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks' Association within two weeks. This ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary's stance against the misuse of legal processes and reinforces the principle of exhausting all available remedies before seeking the court's intervention through writ jurisdiction.
Bottom line:-
High Court cannot issue directions to a Tribunal for early hearing or constitution of a special bench under its writ jurisdiction where the petitioner has alternative remedies available.
Statutory provision(s):
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950; Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 419 of the Companies Act, 2013; Rules 11 and 16(d) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016.
Anuj Goyal v. National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2926667
