NCLAT
Note
Established under Section 410 of the Companies Act, 2013, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) is a statutory quasi-judicial body that hears appeals against orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Competition Commission of India (CCI), and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. It adjudicates corporate insolvency resolution, merger approvals, and competition law appeals, sitting below the Supreme Court in the judicial hierarchy. NCLT remains the original adjudicatory forum at first instance, while Debt Recovery Tribunals handle bank-specific recovery matters outside the IBC framework.
In the news
Questions on this topic
Consider the following statements regarding the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) as established under the Companies Act, 2013:
- The NCLT consists of both Judicial Members and Technical Members, with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs playing an administrative role in the conduct of their appointment process.
- The NCLT is a constitutional body whose members enjoy security of tenure on par with High Court judges, making the tribunal fully independent of executive oversight in all personnel matters.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
The NCLT is a statutory tribunal constituted under the Companies Act, 2013 — not a constitutional body — and its members do not enjoy the same constitutional security of tenure as High Court judges. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs does indeed perform an administrative role in the conduct of the appointment process for Judicial and Technical Members of the NCLT; however, for its own officers and staff (Deputy Registrars, Court Officers, Stenographers, etc.), the NCLT independently manages appointments, a responsibility delegated to it by the Government to ensure effective and independent functioning. Since the NCLT is a creature of statute and the executive retains an administrative role in senior member appointments, Statement 2's claim of full constitutional independence and High Court-equivalent tenure is incorrect. Statement 1 correctly captures the dual-category composition (Judicial and Technical Members) and the MCA's administrative — not substantive — role in the appointment process.
Consider the following statements regarding the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 and its framework for dealing with corporate insolvency, personal guarantor insolvency, and bankruptcy:
- Under the IBC framework, a creditor may initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) simultaneously against a defaulting company and its personal guarantor respectively, provided the total claim across both processes does not exceed the outstanding debt.
- Bankruptcy of a personal guarantor under the IBC is a distinct third-stage process that is triggered only after both the CIRP and the PIRP have failed to secure full recovery for creditors, and upon its initiation, the personal guarantor's estate vests in a bankruptcy trustee appointed by the NCLT.
- The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), which serves as the statutory regulator under the IBC, has the power to adjudicate insolvency applications and approve resolution plans in lieu of the NCLT.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
Statement 1 is correct. Under the IBC's framework, a creditor can pursue CIRP (against a company) and PIRP (against its personal guarantor) simultaneously or sequentially. The key constraint is that the total claim across both processes cannot exceed the actual outstanding debt — the creditor cannot recover more than what is owed in aggregate. Statement 2 is correct. Bankruptcy of a personal guarantor is conceptually the 'liquidation of the personal guarantor' — it is the third and final stage under the IBC, triggered when both CIRP and PIRP have been unable to secure recovery. Upon a bankruptcy declaration by the NCLT, the entire estate of the personal guarantor is vested in a bankruptcy trustee, who is responsible for discovering, valuing, and distributing the assets to creditors. Statement 3 is incorrect. The IBBI (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India) is the statutory regulator and oversight body under the IBC — it registers insolvency professionals, sets regulations, and collects data, but it does NOT adjudicate insolvency applications or approve resolution plans. Adjudication — including admitting applications, approving or rejecting resolution plans, and declaring bankruptcy — is exclusively the domain of the NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal) at first instance, with the NCLAT as the appellate forum. Conflating the regulator (IBBI) with the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is a common conceptual error.
Your record on this topic
Sign in to see how many of these you have answered, which ones you got wrong, and to practise this topic on its own.
Sign in →