SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 39731

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Sounthar, P.B. Balaji, JJ
D.Samuel Surendran – Appellant
Versus
Peranandha Perumal – Respondent
CMP No. 10010 of 2026 | CRP SR NO. 61518 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.Udhaya Kumar

A party cannot challenge a consent order in revision without first seeking modification before the same forum that passed the order.

Headnote:The Civil Procedure Code requires a certified copy for filing a revision petition. The facts of the case involve an order passed by the NCLT, Chennai Bench-II, based on purported consent by counsel for the petitioner. The court found that the order was based on consent given on behalf of the petitioner. The court held that any dispute regarding the correctness of recording consent should be raised before the same forum that passed the order. The primary issue framed by the court was whether the revision petition can be entertained when the impugned order is based on consent given by counsel. The court reasoned that the petitioner cannot contradict the recording of consent without first approaching the same forum for modification. The court rejected the Revision Petition in SR stage, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the NCLT for modification.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks dispensation of certified copy of nclt order. (Para 1)
2. order passed based on consent of counsel for petitioner. (Para 2)
3. claim of no consent and advice to seek modification from nclt. (Para 3)
4. revision not entertained; liberty granted to seek modification from nclt. (Para 4)

(Order of the Court was made by S.Sounthar J.)

C.M.P No. 10010 of 2026 is filed, seeking to dispense with the production of the certified copy of the order dated 23.02.2026 passed in I.A. (IBC)/1056(CHE)/2025 in CP/568/(IB)/(CB)/2017 on the file of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai Bench-II.

2. It is seen from the impugned order that the same has been passed, based on the consent given by the counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the counsel for the petitioner never gave any kind of consent for passing the impugned order. If it is the case of the petitioner that the counsel for the petitioner has not given any consent, on instructions of the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to approach the very same forum, seeking for modification of the impugned order. The petitioner is not entitled to say before this Court that recording made by Tribunal is wrong, without approaching very same forum seeking modification.

4. Since the impugned order is the one passed, based on the consent of the counsel, who represented the petitioner before the said forum, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Revision. Therefore, Civil Revision Petition is rejected in SR stage itself with liberty for the petitioner to approach the very same forum. C.M.P. No.10010 of 2026 is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top