Who is the High Court to dictate when we should schedule a matter? - NCLAT Chennai Bench

In a recent session at the NCLAT Chennai Bench, the issue of High Court directives regarding case listings sparked a contentious debate. Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, presiding over the tribunal, raised pertinent questions regarding the authority of the High Court to mandate priorities for case hearings.

 The Debate Unfolds

During a heated exchange, a lawyer brought to the tribunal's attention a directive from the Karnataka High Court instructing the NCLAT to prioritize a particular case. This led Justice Sharma to question the jurisdictional limits of such directives from the High Court.

Judicial Independence vs. External Directives

Justice Sharma, emphasizing the autonomy of the NCLAT as an appellate tribunal, expressed skepticism towards external mandates dictating the tribunal's scheduling decisions. He pointed out that while the High Court may suggest preferred timelines, it cannot enforce directives upon the NCLAT.

Lawyer's Appeal and Tribunal's Protocol

The lawyer involved sought expedited consideration of an interim application originally filed with the NCLT. Upon his urgent mentioning, he referenced the High Court's prior directive for a Monday hearing, which Justice Sharma received with reservations.

 Tribunal's Procedural Integrity

Justice Sharma clarified the procedural norms of the NCLAT, highlighting that while the tribunal commits to hearing applications promptly, specific dates are assigned by the registry post-mentioning. He reiterated that such protocols ensure fair and independent adjudication.

Judicial Background and Authority

Justice Sharma's distinguished judicial career spans roles in both the High Court and the NCLAT. His tenure reflects a commitment to judicial independence and adherence to procedural fairness, essential for upholding the rule of law.

Conclusion

The debate at the NCLAT Chennai Bench underscores the delicate balance between judicial autonomy and external directives. Justice Sharma's stance reinforces the tribunal's role as an independent appellate body, respecting the judiciary's hierarchical integrity while maintaining procedural sovereignty.

In essence, the discussion serves as a reminder of the nuanced dynamics within India's judicial framework, emphasizing the principles of independence and impartiality crucial for effective adjudication.

Our news media partner, Kaushiki Srivastava, crafted and curated this news. 

 JOIN US FOR MORE UPDATES:

 

WHATSAPP CHANNEL -

https://chat.whatsapp.com/KFqEQu2XzFa8RvSg42N9rM

 

TELEGRAM CHANNEL -  https://t.me/learnwithsakshi03

 

LinkedIn account - 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sakshi-agrawal-0aa0b8213?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app

 

Instagram - 

https://www.instagram.com/_sakshinchaos_?igsh=MTRobXA5eG9jY3AzMw%3D%3D&utm_source=qr

 

FOR ANY QUERY, EMAIL US ON - hustlinglearning@gmail.com