(Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench to dispose of the application dated 08.04.2026 filed by the Petitioner requesting the de-freeezing the account of the petitioner having Account No. 38532489200 in the 4th respondent bank which has been frozen based on the email communication dated 02.04.2026 from the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent expeditiously.)

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

1. The present writ petition has been instituted to direct the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench to dispose of the application dated 08.04.2026 filed by the petitioner requesting the defreezing the account of the petitioner having Account No.38532489200 in the 4th respondent bank which has been frozen based on the email communication dated 02.04.2026 from the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent expeditiously, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner filed an interlocutory application in C.P.No.110/Che/2025 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench under Section 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules. The relief sought for is to direct the authorities to defreeze and lifting of the attachment of the petitioner's bank account lying with the State Bank of India, Parliament House Branch at New Delhi.

3. Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would mainly contend that the petitioner is unable to operate his personal salary account and he has to discharge his functions. Thus, an interlocutory application has been filed on 08.04.2026 before the National Company Law Tribunal with a request to defreeze the bank account enabling the petitioner to operate the same for multiple purposes.

4. This court is of the considered view that, if such a writ petition filed seeking speedy disposal of the interlocutory application is entertained and a direction is issued to the Tribunal, it will cause unnecessary pressure on the Tribunal to dispose of such matters out of turn. No doubt, the Courts / Tribunals are considering matters based on the urgency which has to be placed by the parties before the Court concerned. In exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if such urgent directions are issued for speedy disposal of the cases, undoubtedly it would cause unnecessary pressure on the Courts / Tribunals and the judicial fora may not be in a position to decide the cases in a systematic manner on its own.

5. Therefore, the High Court is expected to exercise restraint in issuing such a direction for speedy disposal of the cases pending before various Courts / Tribunals. Only on exceptional circumstances, where Courts form an opinion for expeditious disposal of the cases, then terms and conditions are to be stipulated to the parties for effective cooperation and disposal. In normal circumstances, such direction would result in unnecessary burden to the Courts / Tribunals.

6. In a Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., in Crl.APP. @ SLP (Crl.)No.13366 of 2024, the Supreme Court held that in the ordinary course, the Constitution Courts are refrained from fixing the time bound schedule for the disposal of the cases pending before any other courts. Paragraph 47.3 of the said judgment reads thus:

                     “ 47.3 Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending .”

7. In the present case, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application only on 08.04.2026. The present writ petition has been instituted on 09.04.2026, the very next day of filing of the interlocutory application. No effective steps are taken by the petitioner to ventilate his grievance before the National Company Law Tribunal, but a writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for speedy disposal. It may be an easy way out for the petitioner, but it would result in unnecessary pressure to the Court / Tribunal dealing with the matter. The Court / Tribunal is expected to dispose of the matters systematically and whenever urgency is raised, the said Court / Tribunal has to consider the same for speedy disposal.

8. Per contra, one party approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and securing a direction for speedy disposal may cause prejudice to the interest of other litigants who are all waiting for a long time for the disposal of their respective cases. As far as litigants are concerned, how so high they are, all have to be treated as equal when the cases are dealt with by the Courts.

9. In the present case, the petitioner has not even allowed the Tribunal to consider the Interlocutory Application and filed the present writ petition immediately the very next day of the filing of such application ie., on 09.04.2026, which cannot be appreciated by this Court. That apart, the petitioner has not established any violation of principles of natural justice or denial of basic rights under any Statute and therefore it would be unnecessary for the High Court to entertain the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is at liberty to ventilate his grievance as well as urgency before the National Company Law Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the interlocutory application.

10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.