CAT Has No Jurisdiction Over HSCC MD Termination

Case Details: Nbcc India Ltd. vs. Novman Ahmed [2026] 185 taxmann.com 399 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Anil Kshetrapal & Amit Mahajan, JJ.
Brijender Chahar, ASG, R.V. Sinha, A.S. Singh & Ms Shriya Sharma, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Ms Sakshi Kakkar, Shakti Singh, Sarthak Karol, Sudhir Nandraj Jog, Advs. & A.K. Behra, Sr. Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Respondent was appointed as Managing Director of petitioner No. 2 company, HSCC (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘HSCC’). Subsequently, petitioner No. 1 company, NBCC (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘NBCC’), being the holding company of HSCC, sought the respondent’s explanation for alleged serious procedural lapses and irregularities.

After considering his reply, NBCC’s Board found it unsatisfactory and forwarded the matter, along with its remarks, to the administrative ministry. With the approval of the competent authority, the respondent was repatriated to NBCC and his services as Managing Director of HSCC were terminated. The respondent filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The Tribunal held that the respondent, having been appointed by the Ministry, held a civil post within the meaning of Section 14(1)(b)(ii), and that the Original Application was maintainable. It was noted that the appointment of the respondent was made by the President of India, acting in the capacity of President of HSCC, and not in her capacity as the constitutional head of the Union.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that the appointment was made pursuant to the Articles of Association (AoA) of an incorporated Government company and was, accordingly, tenure-based and corporate in character, rather than a civil post held under the Union.

It was further observed that the decision of termination had been taken by the Board of Directors of HSCC, which, upon consideration, found the explanation furnished by the respondent to be unsatisfactory. The ultimate authority in this regard was the President of the company, who was the competent authority as per Article 112 of the AoA, which authorised the President to remove any Director, including the Chairman, from office of HSCC.

Further, although a notification under Section 14(2) had been issued by the Central Government with respect to NBCC, the present dispute pertained exclusively to the services of the respondent with HSCC. Therefore, the existence of such notification qua NBCC could not, ipso facto, be determinative of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal over a dispute pertaining to HSCC.

The High Court held that, in the absence of a specific notification with respect to HSCC, it could not be brought within the jurisdictional sweep of the Tribunal by a process of association or inference. Accordingly, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application filed by the respondent.

List of Cases Referred to

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Audh Narain Singh 1964 taxmann.com 31 (SC) (para 15)
State of Orrisa v. Ram Chandra Dev AIR 1964 SC 685 (para 15)
Dr. S.L. Agarwal v. General Manager, Hindustan Steel Ltd [1970] 1969 taxmann.com 330 (SC) (para 16)
S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1981 taxmann.com 707 (SC) (para 16)
Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar 1969 taxmann.com 300 (SC) (para 16)
Praga Tools Corpn. v. C.V. Imanual [1969] 39 Comp Case 889 (SC) (para 16)
State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal (1980) 4 SCC 653 (para 17.2)
Ashok Kumar Bajpai v. Dr. [Smt.] Ranjana Bajpai [2003 SCC OnLine ALL 1296] (para 17.3)
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India 1997 taxmann.com 1023 (SC) (para 18.1)
Rajeev Kumar v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan [2010] 3 taxmann.com 816 (SC) (para 18.1)
Vinay v. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine Del 6396] (para 18.2)
Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 4 SCC 697 (para 18.4)
Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd (2013) 15 SCC 85 (para 32)
Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India [2012] 17 taxmann.com 202/204 Taxman 408 (SC) (para 32).