NCLT and Company Tribunal Filing Fees Explained

NCLT filing fees are fixed, flat amounts set by two instruments: the Schedule of Fees under rule 112 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, and the Schedule to rule 10(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. Which schedule applies depends on the statute invoked, the Companies Act, 2013 or the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, not the value of the claim. An incorrect or short payment is a curable defect under rule 28 of the NCLT Rules, not a fatal one. This article sets out what is payable, how payment is made, and what happens if a filing is withdrawn or falls short.

Two Fee Regimes Meet at the Same Registry Counter

A company filing at the National Company Law Tribunal (the NCLT) faces two fee schedules that share nothing but the counter at which they are tendered. Which one applies turns on the statute invoked, not on the bench, the value of the claim or the relief sought.

Companies Act matters: section 459(2) and rule 112

Section 459(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 empowers the Central Government to prescribe fees on an application to the Tribunal for approval, sanction, consent, confirmation or direction. Rule 112(1) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (the NCLT Rules) gives that power effect: fees are payable as prescribed in the Schedule of Fees appended to the Rules. Rule 112(2) extends the requirement to every interlocutory application. Both sub-rules carry an identical proviso, that no fee is payable or liable to be collected on a filing by the Registrar of Companies, a Regional Director, or an officer acting for the Central Government.

Two features of that Schedule cut against civil court instincts. The fees are flat rather than ad valorem, so an oppression petition over a company with a thousand crore balance sheet costs exactly what one over a dormant shell costs. And the Schedule is short: roughly thirty entries, closing with a residual line covering any application under a provision not specifically mentioned, priced at Rs 1,000. A large share of what is actually filed lands in that last line.

Code matters: rule 10(3) of the Application to Adjudicating Authority Rules

Insolvency initiation is priced elsewhere. Rule 10(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (the AAA Rules), made under section 239(1) of the Code read with sections 7 to 10, requires the application to be accompanied by the fee specified in the Schedule to those Rules. That Schedule has three lines. Rule 10(1) then routes the mechanics of filing back through rules 20 to 24 and 26 of Part III of the NCLT Rules, which is why identical forms and scrutiny govern a section 7 application and a section 241 petition whose fees descend from different parents.

The spread between those three lines is deliberate and worth explaining to a board in advance. A financial creditor pays Rs 25,000. A company filing against itself under section 10 pays Rs 25,000. An operational creditor pays Rs 2,000. In filing-fee terms the operational creditor route is the cheapest way to put a company before the Tribunal, which is part of why the pre-existing dispute test has been fought so hard.

What Is Actually Payable, and Under Which Rule

Every figure below is stated as at 18 August 2026. The Companies Act figures come from the Schedule of Fees to the NCLT Rules as notified on 21 July 2016 and subsequently amended; the Code figures come from the Schedule to the AAA Rules as published by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. No general repricing has been notified, amendments having added entries rather than revised amounts. A fee schedule remains alterable by a single notification, so check the current Schedule before signing off a litigation budget.

Application	Statutory or rule basis	Fee payable (Rs)	Notes
Section 7 application by a financial creditor (Form 1)	Rule 10(3) and entry 1 of the Schedule, AAA Rules	25,000	Same figure whether filed by one creditor or jointly by several
Section 9 application by an operational creditor (Form 5)	Entry 2 of the Schedule, AAA Rules	2,000	Lowest priced initiation route in the system
Section 10 application by a corporate applicant (Form 6)	Entry 3 of the Schedule, AAA Rules	25,000	The Schedule describes this as an application by the corporate debtor
Withdrawal of an admitted application under section 12A	No dedicated entry; residual entry of the NCLT Schedule	1,000	Section 12A was replaced with effect from 26 May 2026; the fee position was not altered
Interlocutory application in a pending matter	Rule 112(2), NCLT Rules; residual entry	1,000	Nil where the applicant is the Registrar of Companies, a Regional Director or a Central Government officer
Oppression and mismanagement petition	Section 241(1), Companies Act, 2013; entry 23 of the NCLT Schedule	10,000	The highest single entry in the Companies Act schedule
Application for regulating the conduct of the company	Section 242(4); entry 24 of the NCLT Schedule	2,500	Typically filed alongside, not instead of, the section 241 petition
Waiver of the shareholding threshold	Section 244(1); entry 26 of the NCLT Schedule	2,500	Filed in Form NCLT-9 under rule 83A of the NCLT Rules
Class action	Section 245; entry 27 of the NCLT Schedule	5,000	Flat, irrespective of the size of the class
Compromise or arrangement: first motion and sanction petition	Sections 230 and 232; no dedicated entry, residual entry applies	1,000 each	Two separate filings, so two separate payments
Takeover offer in an unlisted company	Section 230(12); entry inserted by the NCLT (Amendment) Rules, 2020	5,000	The only section 230 entry that names a sub-section
Restoration of a struck-off name	Section 252(1) or 252(3); rule 87A of the NCLT Rules; residual entry	1,000	Rule 87A was inserted on 5 July 2017 and prescribes procedure, not fee
Appeal to the NCLAT under the Companies Act	Section 421; entry 29 of the NCLT Schedule and the NCLAT Schedule	5,000	Process fee is separate and must be tendered by a separate instrument
Certified copy of a final order	Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules; final entry of the NCLT Schedule	5 per page	Supplied free to the parties concerned; the charge falls on everyone else

The residual entry does most of the heavy lifting

Four filings that in-house counsel meet constantly have no line of their own. A withdrawal application under section 12A of the Code is the first: the provision was substituted by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 and the replacement took effect on 26 May 2026, but neither the Code nor the AAA Rules attach a fee to withdrawal, and the AAA Schedule speaks only to initiation. The application is made within the admitted petition and priced by the residual entry.

Interlocutory applications are the second. Rule 112(2) is emphatic that a fee is payable on each one, yet the Schedule has no interlocutory line, so the residual entry is the only candidate. Across a contested insolvency running two years the aggregate of Rs 1,000 charges will never trouble a legal budget. What it troubles is the filing clerk, because each payment must be separately evidenced at the point of e-filing.

Applications to convene meetings and to sanction a scheme under sections 230 and 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 are the third, and that omission is genuinely odd. The only section 230 entry addresses sub-section (12), the takeover offer in an unlisted company, inserted by the National Company Law Tribunal (Amendment) Rules, 2020 at Rs 5,000. Nothing addresses the first motion or the sanction petition, both separate filings attracting the residual entry. Restoration of a struck-off name under section 252 is the fourth: rule 87A, inserted on 5 July 2017, prescribes procedure and says nothing about money.

Paying It: Demand Draft, Indian Postal Order or Bharatkosh

Rule 112(3) of the NCLT Rules, as amended in December 2016, provides for payment by Indian Postal Order or bank draft drawn in favour of the Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Corporate Affairs at New Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai or Mumbai, as the case may be or as decided by the President. Rule 55(2) of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 (the NCLAT Rules) does the same for appeals, payable at New Delhi, and requires the fee and the process fee to be tendered by separate instruments.

The rule text has not caught up with the counter. The NCLT e-filing portal's help material records that a filer may pay offline or online, online payment redirecting to Bharatkosh, the Government of India's Non-Tax Receipt Portal, with the demand draft still to be lodged physically if the offline route is chosen. The NCLAT's published checklist puts it in a line: filing fees are to be deposited through Bharatkosh or by demand draft as per the Act and Rules, with the transaction identifier or draft particulars entered separately for each appeal or application.

Refunds, Waivers and the Cost of a Shortfall

Is the NCLT Filing Fee Ever Refunded?

Neither the NCLT Rules nor the AAA Rules contain a refund provision. They address payment, the consequences of non-payment and costs, and say nothing about repayment. The Rs 25,000 tendered on a section 7 application is not returned if the application is withdrawn before admission under rule 8 of the AAA Rules, withdrawn after admission under section 12A, dismissed on the merits, or settled on the first date. The fee buys the filing, not the outcome. That departs from civil practice, where the Court Fees Act, 1870 provides for refund in defined situations including settlement through alternative dispute resolution. A lender filing ten section 7 applications and expecting seven to settle has spent Rs 2.5 lakh, not Rs 75,000.

Can a Litigant Get the NCLT Filing Fee Waived?

Rule 55(3) of the NCLAT Rules gives the Appellate Tribunal a power the Tribunal below lacks: it may, to advance the cause of justice and in suitable cases, waive payment of the fee or a portion of it, taking into account the economic condition or indigent circumstances of the appellant or applicant or such other reason. The NCLT Rules contain nothing comparable. Relief exists on appeal that does not exist at first instance, which is worth remembering when advising a personal guarantor or a small operational creditor on whether to file at all.

What Happens When the NCLT Registry Raises a Fee Deficiency?

Rule 28 of the NCLT Rules governs scrutiny. A defective filing is returned, after notice, for compliance, and if the defect is not made good within seven days the Registrar may pass appropriate orders. A fee shortfall is a rule 28 defect like any other. Whether it is fatal is the question that matters commercially, and it is not.

In Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2025 INSC 1349], decided on 24 November 2025, the Supreme Court dealt with a section 7 application that the registry of the NCLT at Ahmedabad had refused to register over a defective supporting affidavit. The Court held the defect curable and incapable of rendering the application non est. It further held that a consolidated rule 28 notice issued to twenty-six applicants did not satisfy the proviso to section 7(5)(b) of the Code, which requires notice to the applicant to rectify within seven days before an incomplete application is rejected. Relying on Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy, the Court noted that no penalty attaches to a failure to cure within seven days, but it still directed the bank to cure the defect within seven days of the judgment.

The reasoning transfers to a fee objection without strain. A shortfall is curable, the registry cannot treat the petition as never having existed, and the applicant is entitled to a notice identifying what is wrong. What the applicant is not entitled to is unlimited time. The Tribunal is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (section 424(1) of the Companies Act, 2013), but the discipline applied to deficit court fee in A. Nawab John v. V.N. Subramaniyam [(2012) 7 SCC 738] reads across: section 149 confers no absolute right to pay whenever it suits the plaintiff, and where a deficit is cured after limitation has expired the explanation must be scrutinised. Since article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs applications under sections 7 and 9, a casual delay in curing a shortfall on an application filed near the three-year mark is not a footnote.

Appeal Fees Are Governed by a Different Schedule Again

An appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (the NCLAT) is priced by the Schedule to the NCLAT Rules, not the NCLT Schedule, though the two agree on the headline number. Rule 55(1) provides that the fee for an appeal or an interlocutory application, and the process fee, shall be as prescribed in that Schedule. Standard practitioner commentary reproduces two entries: Rs 1,000 for a proceeding under section 218(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rs 5,000 for an appeal under section 421(1).

Neither Schedule contains an entry expressly directed at an appeal under section 61 of the Code, and the NCLAT checklist does not close the gap, saying only that fees are to be deposited as per the Act and Rules. Counsel budgeting an insolvency appeal should confirm the current figure with the Registry rather than assume the Companies Act number carries across, and should recall that rule 55(2) wants the fee and the process fee on separate instruments.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the filing fee for a section 7 application under the Code?

Rs 25,000, whether filed by a single financial creditor or jointly by several. The figure comes from entry 1 of the Schedule to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, read with rule 10(3). It is stated as at 18 August 2026 and should be checked against the current Schedule before you file.

Is the fee refunded if the matter settles or the petition is withdrawn?

No. Neither the NCLT Rules nor the AAA Rules provide for a refund in any circumstance, including withdrawal before admission, withdrawal under section 12A after admission, dismissal or settlement. Treat the fee as sunk from the moment of filing.

What fee applies to an interlocutory application at the NCLT?

Rule 112(2) requires a fee on every interlocutory application, but the Schedule has no dedicated entry for one, so the residual entry of Rs 1,000 applies. No fee is payable where the applicant is the Registrar of Companies, a Regional Director or an officer acting for the Central Government.

What happens if the fee paid turns out to be short?

The registry raises it on scrutiny under rule 28 of the NCLT Rules and returns the filing for compliance, ordinarily within seven days. The shortfall is curable: in Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. HDFC Bank Ltd. the Supreme Court confirmed that a curable defect does not render a section 7 application non est, and that specific notice under the proviso to section 7(5)(b) must precede rejection. Do not treat delay in curing as costless where limitation is tight.

Can the fee be paid online or is a demand draft still required?

Both routes exist. Rule 112(3) prescribes an Indian Postal Order or a bank draft in favour of the Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The e-filing portal also accepts online payment through Bharatkosh, and the NCLAT checklist expressly contemplates Bharatkosh or a demand draft. If you pay online, upload the receipt; a transaction number alone will attract an objection.

Is there a separate fee for a scheme of arrangement under sections 230 and 232?

The Schedule contains no entry for an application to convene meetings or for the sanction petition. The only section 230 entry addresses sub-section (12), the takeover offer in an unlisted company, at Rs 5,000. The first motion and the sanction petition are separate filings, each attracting the residual Rs 1,000 entry.

What is the filing fee for a section 9 application by an operational creditor?

Rs 2,000, under entry 2 of the Schedule to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, filed on Form 5. It is the lowest priced initiation route among the three insolvency applications, well below the Rs 25,000 payable on a section 7 application by a financial creditor or a section 10 application by the corporate debtor itself. The figure is stated as at 18 August 2026 and should be checked against the current Schedule before filing.

What is the filing fee for a section 10 application filed by the corporate debtor itself?

Rs 25,000, the same figure payable on a section 7 application by a financial creditor. Entry 3 of the Schedule to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 prices a section 10 application, which the Schedule describes as an application by the corporate debtor itself, filed on Form 6. Rule 10(1) of the AAA Rules then routes the filing mechanics through rules 20 to 24 and 26 of Part III of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016.

What fee applies to an oppression and mismanagement petition under section 241 of the Companies Act?

Rs 10,000, under entry 23 of the Schedule of Fees to the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, for a petition under section 241(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. This is the highest single flat-fee entry in the Companies Act schedule, though it remains flat rather than tied to the value of the company or the claim, so a petition over a large company costs the same as one over a small one. An application under section 242(4) to regulate the company's conduct, typically filed alongside the section 241 petition, is priced separately at Rs 2,500.

Can the NCLAT waive a filing fee where the NCLT cannot?

Yes, but only the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, not the Tribunal below. Rule 55(3) of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 lets the NCLAT waive payment of the fee, or a portion of it, to advance the cause of justice in suitable cases, taking into account the economic condition or indigent circumstances of the appellant. The National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 contain no comparable provision, so a waiver is available on appeal but not at first instance.

What is the fee for an appeal to the NCLAT under section 421 of the Companies Act?

Rs 5,000, for an appeal under section 421(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, priced by the Schedule to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 rather than the NCLT Schedule. Rule 55(2) of the NCLAT Rules requires the fee and the process fee to be tendered by separate instruments. Neither the NCLAT Schedule nor practitioner commentary contains an entry expressly directed at an appeal under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, so that figure should be confirmed with the Registry before filing.

Is there a fee for a certified copy of an NCLT order?

Yes, Rs 5 per page, under the final entry of the Schedule of Fees to the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, read with rule 50 of those Rules. A certified copy is supplied free of charge to the parties actually concerned in the matter; the per-page charge falls on anyone else requesting a copy of a final order.

Why does a section 9 application by an operational creditor cost less than a section 7 application?

Because the two applications descend from different entries in the same Schedule, priced without regard to the underlying claim's size. Entry 2 of the Schedule to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 fixes Rs 2,000 for an operational creditor's section 9 application, against Rs 25,000 under entry 1 for a financial creditor's section 7 application. The gap makes the operational creditor route the cheapest way to bring a company before the Tribunal, which is part of why the pre-existing dispute test at admission has been contested so heavily.

Vikrant D. Shetty | Vikrant D. Shetty leads the Insolvency and Arbitration Practice at the law firm Vikrant D. Shetty & Associates, Advocates & Solicitors which advises financial creditors, operational creditors, and corporate debtors on filings, fee compliance and registry procedure in proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, and represents parties in domestic and international commercial arbitrations seated in India and abroad, including enforcement and challenge proceedings before the Bombay High Court.

Related reading: Treatment of Disputed Operational Creditor Claims at the Admission Stage under IBC.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please seek direct consultation with an advocate.