NCLAT: Superstar lawyers cannot monopolise court time due to hefty fees

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 29 October 2026

Case: Not specified in source
Bench: Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Member (Technical) Barun Mitra
Citation: Not specified in source
Source: Bar & Bench

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that lawyers charging hefty fees cannot monopolise court time. The bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Barun Mitra stated that court time is a public resource and must be distributed equitably, emphasising that no lawyer, regardless of their fees, has a right to exclusive court time.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

Court time is a public resource and cannot be monopolised by any lawyer, irrespective of the fees charged. The distribution of court time must be equitable.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates should manage their schedules to avoid conflicts, as courts will not grant adjournments solely based on a lawyer's high fees or busy schedule. Litigants should be aware that engaging high-fee lawyers does not guarantee exclusive court time or preferential treatment for adjournments.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Court time is a public resource, not a private commodity.
2No lawyer, regardless of fees, has a right to monopolise court time.
3Adjournments will not be granted merely due to a lawyer's busy schedule or high fees.

The Legal Issue The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) addressed the issue of court time allocation and the perceived right of certain lawyers, particularly those charging substantial fees, to monopolise it. The Tribunal considered whether the engagement of a 'superstar lawyer' could justify preferential treatment or repeated adjournments, thereby impacting the efficient functioning of the court.

Court's Reasoning A bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Member (Technical) Barun Mitra unequivocally stated that court time is a public resource. The Tribunal observed that this resource must be distributed equitably among all litigants and their counsel. It was held that the fees charged by a lawyer, however hefty, do not confer any right to monopolise court time. The NCLAT emphasised that no lawyer, irrespective of their professional standing or the remuneration they receive, can claim exclusive access to court proceedings or demand adjournments based solely on their busy schedule. The court's pronouncement underscores the principle that justice delivery should not be hampered by the individual commitments of counsel.

What Follows This ruling indicates that the NCLAT will likely adopt a stricter approach to requests for adjournments, particularly those based on counsel's unavailability due to other engagements. Advocates are expected to manage their professional commitments to ensure timely appearance and progression of cases. The decision reinforces the court's commitment to efficient judicial administration and equitable access to justice for all parties.