ORDER :

This petition, has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 14.9.2021 (learnt on 25.9.2021) passed by the respondent no.3 in CP (CAA) 74 of 2020 in CA (CAA) 49 of 2020 and Company Application No.20 (AHM) of 2021.

2. Central to the issue is, the order dated 14.9.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) approving the scheme of merger/amalgamation. According to the petitioners, the cause list dated 14.9.2021, published on the website of the respondent no.3, did not contain the pronouncement of order in CP (CAA) 74 of 2020 in CA (CAA) 49 of 2020 and Company Application No.20 (AHM) of 2021. Therefore, the order has been passed behind the back of the petitioners; in violation of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2016’), so also in violation of the statutory and fundamental rights of the petitioners. This Court on 18.10.2021, after hearing the learned advocate for petitioners, issued the notice and ad-interim relief was granted staying the operation and implementation of the order dated 14.9.2021. The said order reads thus:-

“Heard Mr. Arjun Sheth, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order delivered on 14.09.2021 by the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). It is submitted that the order sheet clearly reflects that neither the applicant, nor the IRP, nor the respondent are present when the order was delivered. It is submitted that the publication of the cause-list, is governed by the provisions of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2016"). Rule 89 contained in Part IX, titled Cause-List, provides for preparation and publication of daily cause list. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 89 envisages that the Registry shall prepare and publish on the notice board of the Registry before the closing of working hours on each working day, the cause-list for the next working day and subject to the directions of the President, listing of cases in the daily cause-list in the order of priority unless otherwise ordered by the concerned Bench. It is further submitted that as required under Rule 89, the cause-list even for the pronouncement of the order, is to be prepared in advance. So far as the present case is concerned, the cause-list for 13.09.2021 was prepared on 10.09.2021, which is signed by the Joint Registrar, NCLT on 10.09.2021. The CP (CAA) 74 of 2020 was listed for the purpose of clarification on 13.09.2021. On 13.09.2021, the application was listed and order was reserved. It is further submitted that the cause-list of 14.09.2021 was prepared on 13.09.2021, which is signed by the Joint Registrar, NCLT containing 134 matters and the matter at serial no. 134 was under the caption of pronouncement of order. However, CP (CAA) 74 of 2021 was not appearing in the list. It is submitted that CP (CAA) 74 of 2021 was pushed in, on 14.09.2021 itself, as is apparent from the signature put in by the Joint Registrar. It is submitted that such preparation of the cause-list, would not be in conformity with the requirement of Rule 89 of the Rules of 2016 and would be nullity. It is also submitted that the petitioner was not aware about the pronouncement of the order and it was only when the respondent No. 7 addressed an e-mail dated 25.09.2021, that the petitioner came to know about the pronouncement of the order dated 14.09.2021.

3. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kamal K. Singh vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 154 CLA 213 (Bombay). It is submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court while dealing with the Rule 89 which provides for preparation and publication of the daily cause-list, while not accepting the arguments raised by the respondent as regards the non-maintainability of writ petition, held and