NCLT vs NCLAT — jurisdictional differences in IBC matters in 2026

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 set up a two-tier specialised forum for corporate insolvency: the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) as the Adjudicating Authority and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) as the Appellate Authority. For practitioners new to IBC — and for senior counsel walking junior associates through the jurisdictional split — this is the working map.

NCLT — what it does

The NCLT is the Adjudicating Authority under Section 60 of the IBC. Its principal functions:

Admission of CIRP applications under Sections 7 (financial creditor), 9 (operational creditor), and 10 (corporate-debtor self-initiated)

Order of moratorium under Section 14

Appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) under Section 16

Replacement / continuation of the IRP as Resolution Professional (RP)

Approval of resolution plans under Section 31

Liquidation orders under Section 33

Avoidance applications — preferential, undervalued, fraudulent, and extortionate transactions under Sections 43-51

Personal guarantor proceedings under Part III IBC (Section 60(2))

Voluntary liquidation orders under Section 59

The NCLT also exercises jurisdiction under the Companies Act 2013 — schemes of arrangement, oppression and mismanagement, deregistration applications. For IBC purposes, however, Section 60 IBC is the source of authority.

NCLT has 16 benches as of 2026:

Principal Bench: New Delhi

Branch Benches: Ahmedabad, Allahabad, Amaravati, Bengaluru, Chandigarh, Chennai, Cuttack, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Indore, Jaipur, Kochi, Kolkata, Mumbai

Territorial jurisdiction follows the registered office of the corporate debtor. The branch closest to the corporate debtor's registered office hears the matter.

NCLAT — what it does

The NCLAT is the Appellate Authority under Section 61 IBC. It hears:

Appeals against NCLT orders under Sections 61(1)-(4)

Appeals against orders of the IBBI (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India) under Section 202

NCLAT also hears appeals from NCLT orders under the Companies Act 2013 and Competition Commission of India orders under the Competition Act 2002.

NCLAT has the Principal Bench at New Delhi and the Chennai Bench. Both hear matters within their respective territorial allocation.

What goes where — a working table

Matter type | First instance | Appeal
Section 7 (financial creditor CIRP) | NCLT (corporate debtor's branch) | NCLAT
Section 9 (operational creditor CIRP) | NCLT | NCLAT
Section 10 (corporate-debtor self-initiated) | NCLT | NCLAT
Section 31 (resolution plan approval) | NCLT | NCLAT
Section 33 (liquidation order) | NCLT | NCLAT
Section 43-51 (avoidance applications) | NCLT | NCLAT
IBBI penalty / disciplinary orders | IBBI (original) | NCLAT
Personal guarantor proceedings (Part III) | NCLT (Section 60(2)) or DRT | DRAT (where DRT first instance) / NCLAT (where NCLT first instance)
Avoidance applications by liquidator | NCLT | NCLAT
Section 12 (CIRP timeline extension) | NCLT | NCLAT

Limitation

Section 61(2) — appeal to NCLAT within 30 days from the date of the impugned NCLT order. The NCLAT may condone delay of up to 15 further days on sufficient cause.

Aggregate maximum: 45 days. After that, appeals are time-barred at the NCLAT level. The Supreme Court is the only further remedy under Section 62.

Pre-deposit and security

Unlike Section 107 GST or Section 35F Customs, IBC appeals do not require a fixed-percentage pre-deposit. However:

The NCLAT routinely requires the appellant (especially in Section 9 dismissed-application appeals) to deposit a security amount before admitting the appeal

Stay of moratorium operations is rarely granted; the moratorium continues during appeal unless specifically stayed

Section 7 vs Section 9 — the jurisdictional difference

The most-litigated jurisdictional question at NCLT is the financial-creditor vs operational-creditor split:

Section 7 — Financial Creditor. Definition under Section 5(7): a person to whom a financial debt is owed. Banks, NBFCs, debenture holders typically. Section 7 is faster — the financial creditor presents loan documents and the NCLT admits unless there's a "real dispute" or default is denied.

Section 9 — Operational Creditor. Definition under Section 5(20): supplier of goods or services. Default is a non-payment of operational debt above the threshold (currently ₹1 crore per the 2020 amendment). Section 9 has a 10-day demand notice procedure and a "pre-existing dispute" defence under Section 8.

The Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations v. Kirusa Software (2018) held: NCLT cannot admit a Section 9 application if there's a "plausible contention" of pre-existing dispute. This is the standard battleground.

Recent appellate trends (2024-2026)

Vidarbha Industries. The 2022 SC judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power v. Axis Bank held that NCLT has discretion to refuse admission even where default is established. Subsequent decisions have narrowed this — the Vidarbha discretion is exercised sparingly.

Section 95 personal guarantor cases. Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India (2021) upheld the constitutional validity of personal-guarantor IBC provisions. NCLT's jurisdiction under Section 60(2) for personal-guarantor proceedings continues to expand.

CIRP timeline strictness. The 330-day outer limit under Section 12 IBC is being enforced more rigorously. Extensions are being granted but with reasons; routine extensions are no longer assumed.

How CourtNetra handles IBC workflow

IBC matters in CourtNetra carry section invoked (7/9/10), corporate debtor name and registered office, and a CIRP timeline countdown surfaced on the matter dashboard. Avoidance applications, Section 31 resolution plan approvals, and liquidation orders are tagged distinctly.

NyayaLens AI surfaces precedent on common IBC questions — Mobilox, Vidarbha, Phoenix ARC v. Spade Financial, State Bank of India v. V. Ramakrishnan — with verified citations.

The 7 AM IST hearing-diary digest covers NCLT and NCLAT listings across all branches your matters touch.

The bottom line

NCLT and NCLAT are adjacent and the split is generally clean — original vs appellate. Practitioners running IBC portfolios benefit from clear matter-level tagging (which forum, which section, which timeline). CourtNetra implements that tagging and makes the cross-bench coordination easier. For the substantive law, the Mobilox / Vidarbha / Phoenix ARC line of cases is the working framework for 2026.