High Court cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to bypass Tribunal’s administrative prerogative and statutory appellate remedies.

The Petitioner, a homebuyer and member of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, filed a Transfer Application (TA) before the NCLT Principal Bench (Respondent No. 1) seeking to transfer proceedings from NCLT Chandigarh (Respondent No. 2) to New Delhi.

On June 9, 2026, Respondent No. 2 reserved orders on the approval of a Resolution Plan.

Fearing the TA would become infructuous if the Plan was approved first, the Petitioner sought an early hearing of the TA during vacations.

When a special bench was not immediately constituted, the Petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking directions to the NCLT to hear the TA urgently or maintain status quo.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, which dictate that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from invoking extraordinary jurisdiction when proceedings are pending before a competent Tribunal.

The constitution of Benches and listing of matters are the exclusive administrative prerogatives of the President of the Tribunal under the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016.

Doctrine against "forum shopping," which prohibits a litigant from approaching multiple forums for substantially identical reliefs.

Respondent No. 1 is a Tribunal presided over by its President, and the Petitioner failed to demonstrate why they did not move an appropriate application for urgent listing directly before the Hon’ble President instead of approaching the High Court.

The Petitioner had already approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against the order dated June 9, 2026, meaning a statutory remedy had already been pursued for similar relief.

The filing of the Transfer Application at such a belated stage—after participating in the Chandigarh proceedings and as the plan approval was imminent—was an "afterthought."

The Petitioner’s conduct amounted to an abuse of the process of law and "forum shopping".

The petition was misconceived as the Petitioner had failed to exhaust administrative remedies and had already availed of alternative statutory remedies.

The Petition was dismissed with costs of ₹25,000/- to be paid to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association within two weeks.