NCLT & Company Law Disputes in Bangalore

Companies whose registered office is in Karnataka fall within the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench. Appeals from its orders lie to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, within forty-five days under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, and thereafter to the Supreme Court on a question of law under Section 423.

Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 sets the threshold. In a company having share capital, the petition must be supported by not less than one hundred members or one-tenth of the total number of members, whichever is less, or by members holding not less than one-tenth of the issued share capital. In a company without share capital, not less than one-fifth of the total number of members is required. The Tribunal may waive these requirements in a fit case, so falling short of the threshold does not automatically leave a member without remedy.

It depends on the relief sought. Matters expressly assigned to the NCLT by the Companies Act, 2013 — oppression and mismanagement under Sections 241–242, rectification of the register under Section 59, restoration under Section 252, schemes under Sections 230–232 — must go to the Tribunal, and Section 430 bars civil courts from entertaining them. A purely contractual claim between shareholders, by contrast, is an ordinary civil or commercial suit. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 lies to the High Court against the Registrar or other statutory authorities. Choosing the wrong forum usually means the petition is returned or dismissed, so this is settled before filing.

Yes. Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 allows an appeal to the NCLT against a strike-off order of the Registrar of Companies. An aggrieved company, member, creditor or workman may apply within three years of the order; a separate route under Section 252(3) allows an application within twenty years where the company was carrying on business. The Tribunal may order restoration where it is satisfied the company was in operation at the relevant time, or that restoration is otherwise just — commonly sought to complete pending litigation or deal with property standing in the company's name.

Yes. Eligibility under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 turns on membership of the company, not on citizenship or residence. A foreign national or non-resident holding shares in an Indian company may petition on the same footing as any other member, subject to the Section 244 threshold and to the Tribunal's power to waive it in a fit case. A party may also act through a duly constituted power of attorney holder, and benches have permitted appearance by video conferencing in appropriate cases.

Usually yes. Where the Registrar has struck the company off under Section 248 for non-filing, Section 252 provides the remedy — an appeal within three years of the Registrar's order, or an application by the company, a member, a creditor or a workman within twenty years of the strike-off notice. Bank statements, tax and GST filings, and property or litigation standing in the company's name are the evidence that usually carries the application. Note that limitation runs from the Registrar's order, not from the date the promoter discovered the strike-off — which is why these matters are often close to time-barred when they surface.

Yes. Section 242(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 empowers the Tribunal to make any interim order it thinks fit for regulating the conduct of the company's affairs, pending final disposal. In practice this includes orders maintaining status quo on shareholding, restraining the alienation of assets, restraining the operation of disputed board resolutions, or directing that no further allotment be made. Interim relief depends on establishing urgency and a prima facie case, and is usually sought at the time of filing rather than later.

The minimum default threshold was raised from one lakh to one crore rupees by a notification dated 24 March 2020 under the proviso to Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Applications may be filed by a financial creditor under Section 7, by an operational creditor under Section 9 after a demand notice under Section 8, or by the corporate debtor itself under Section 10. Admission triggers the moratorium under Section 14.

A genuine pre-existing dispute. In Mobilox Innovations v. Kirusa Software (2017) the Supreme Court held that where the corporate debtor raises a dispute that existed before the demand notice, the Tribunal must reject the application — it need only satisfy itself that there is a plausible contention requiring further investigation, not that the defence will ultimately succeed. A dispute that is spurious, hypothetical or illusory will not do. This is why an exchange of correspondence disputing quality or quantity, predating the notice, so often ends a Section 9 petition.

Yes, in most cases. Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 requires a plaintiff to exhaust pre-institution mediation before instituting a suit, unless the suit contemplates urgent interim relief. In Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited (2022) the Supreme Court held this to be mandatory, and a suit filed in breach of it is liable to be rejected. A dispute is triable by a Commercial Court where the specified value is not less than three lakh rupees.

Only on the limited grounds in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — incapacity of a party, an invalid arbitration agreement, want of proper notice, the award dealing with a dispute outside the scope of the reference, irregular composition of the tribunal, non-arbitrability, or conflict with the public policy of India. The application must be made within three months of receiving the award, extendable by thirty days on sufficient cause. The court does not re-hear the merits.

Generally three years. Under Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963 a suit for compensation for breach of contract must be filed within three years of the breach, and a suit on an account stated attracts the same period. Section 18 provides that a written acknowledgement of liability signed before the period expires gives a fresh start to limitation from the date of that acknowledgement. Limitation is strictly applied, so delay in taking advice can extinguish an otherwise sound claim.

A mutual consent divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 requires a joint petition, a first motion, a statutory interval of six months, and a second motion within eighteen months. A straightforward matter in the Bangalore Family Courts commonly concludes in six to eighteen months. In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) the Supreme Court held the six-month period to be directory rather than mandatory, so it may be waived where the parties have already lived apart for the statutory period and all issues are genuinely settled.

The welfare of the child is paramount and overrides the ordinary rights of either parent. The court weighs the child's age, the existing emotional bond, the stability and continuity each parent can offer, schooling, and — where the child is old enough to form an intelligent preference — the child's own wishes. Under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, custody of a child below five years ordinarily lies with the mother, though that presumption too yields to welfare on the facts.