The court affirmed the importance of procedural compliance under Rule 89 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, highlighting that failure to adhere to such rules affects litigants' rights to seek necessary relief.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking an appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 09.02.2026 passed by the respondent No.3 – National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad [“NCLT” for short] in Company Petition No.417 of 2026 and IA No.45 of 2026.

2. Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Company petition No. 417 of 2026 and IA No.45 of 2026 came to be finally heard by the NCLT on 06.02.2026 and reserved for pronouncement of judgment. It is submitted that the written submissions also came to be filed by the respondent No.1. It is further submitted that when the daily cause list for 09.02.2026 came to be uploaded on the NCLT website on 07.02.2026, it did not reflect the listing of 417 of 2026 and IA No.45 of 2026 for pronouncement of the judgment. He submits that suddenly on 09.02.2026 in the morning, a separate list for pronouncement of the judgment came to be uploaded and the impugned judgment came to be pronounced without any proper intimation to the petitioners herein. He submits that such an action on the part of the NCLT has caused grave prejudice to the petitioners in as much as the CIRP proceedings have been started against the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel submits that such an action by the respondent No.3 NCLT is also in breach of Rule 89 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 [“Rules, 2016” for short]. Learned Senior Counsel therefore, submits that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and the respondent No.3 NCLT be directed to comply with the provisions of of the Rules, 2016 before such an order is pronounced so that the petitioners have an opportunity of seeking stay of the order so pronounced so as to approach the higher forum.

2.1 In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following judgments:-

[a] Kamal K. Singh v. Union of India, Through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors. - 2019 SCC ONLine Bom 5609;

[b] Order dated 04.01.2022 in Special Civil Application No.15485 of 2021; and

[c] Order dated 26.10.2021 in Special Civil Application No.5042 of 2021.

3. Per contra, Mr. Tarak Damani, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that in the present case, the petitioners were fully aware of the pronouncement of the judgment by the respondent No.3 NCLT on 09.02.2026. He submits that the parties to the Company Petition had received email in respect of the uploading of Supplementary Board for the pronouncement of orders in 5 cases including the 417 of 2026 and IA No.45 of 2026. He submits that as a standard procedure, the email in respect of such cause list was also received by the parties to the petition. He submits that after the pronouncement of the order, the parties have also received a copy of the impugned order by email. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter by email dated 10.02.2026, it was intimated by the Interim Resolution Profesional [“IRP” for short] to the Statutory Auditor intimating the CIRP process and demand of documents from the respondent No.1 company. He submits that thereafter the IRP has also initiated further steps and various parties have been intimated. Accordingly, public announcement has also been made in the newspaper publications and the concerned parties have also been informed of the impugned order by the IRP. He submits that since the petitioners were in knowledge of the pronouncement of the judgment on the same day i.e. 09.02.2026, the petitioners could have taken appropriate steps for seeking any interim relief to ap