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)(NCLAT) 389

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)
Baskaran Sathya Prakash – Appellant
Versus
V CS Vasudevan Gopu – Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 487/2025|IA Nos. 1385 & 1512/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Sandeep Kumar Ambalavanan, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ms. Pavithra Dayalan, Advocate, Dr. S. Sathiyanarayanan, Advocate

Tribunal must notify hearing dates per rules and natural justice; ex parte orders without prior notice or direction are procedural flaws amenable to recall under inherent powers, not review on merits. (28 words)

Headnote:(A) Companies Act, 2013 - Sections 2(90), 408, 424 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 43, 44, 60(5) - NCLT Rules, 2016 - Rule 44 - NCLAT Rules, 2016 - Rule 11 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order IX Rule 7, Order XLI Rules 11, 12 - Tribunal procedure - Principles of natural justice require mandatory notification of hearing date to parties; pronouncement of order without fixing hearing date, concluding arguments, or proceeding ex parte after notice vitiates order as procedural irregularity - Ex parte orders passed without compliance with procedural safeguards amenable to recall under inherent powers, distinguishable from review which re-examines merits - Tribunal empowered to regulate procedure guided by natural justice, with civil court powers for summoning, evidence, enforcement as decrees - Applicability of CPC principles to proceedings under IBC via Section 424 amendment. (Paras 4, 6-8, 20-21, 27, 34)

(B) Recall vs Review - Application seeking recall of ex parte order due to procedural flaws (non-notification of hearing, no ex parte direction, pending interlocutory application undecided) not review; review limited to merits re-scrutiny - Inherent powers under Section 60(5) IBC read with Rule 11 NCLAT Rules available to prevent abuse of process. (Paras 30, 34)

Facts of the case:
Former director/employee and spouse claimed salary, reimbursements, and interest-free loan totaling Rs.2.48 crores against corporate debtor under liquidation. Liquidator classified transactions as preferential under Sections 43/44 IBC, filed application. Amid multiple adjournments due to non-appearance of respondents' counsel, tribunal listed matter for pronouncement without prior hearing notice, concluded arguments, or ex parte direction, dismissing claims. Respondents withdrew prior appeal but filed recall application post liberty granted, which was rejected as review; present appeal challenges that rejection.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order quashed; matter remitted for reconsideration of recall application after deciding pending application for additional documents, subject to appellants depositing Rs.50,000 costs in specified fund within two weeks.

Issues: (1) Validity of order pronounced without notifying hearing date per Rule 44 NCLT Rules and Order XLI Rule 12 CPC; (2) Whether recall application constituted review or invoked inherent powers against procedural irregularity; (3) Obligation to fix ex parte hearing date under Order IX Rule 7 CPC before pronouncement.

Ratio Decidendi: Tribunal bound by natural justice and procedural rules; failure to notify hearing, conclude arguments, or direct ex parte proceedings renders order a nullity amenable to recall, not review; pending applications must be adjudicated to prevent non-application of mind.

Result: Appeal allowed; orders set aside, matter remitted with costs.

Table of Content
1. nclt is statutory tribunal following natural justice. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. section 424 and nclt rule 44 mandate hearing notice. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. mandatory notice required before deciding petitions. (Para 8 , 20)
4. appellants' claims against corporate debtor in liquidation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. no effective hearing provided to appellants. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. procedural irregularity in ex-parte pronouncement. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
7. appellate tribunal granted liberty for recall. (Para 28 , 29)
8. recall application valid due to procedural flaws. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
9. remit for reconsideration with costs. (Para 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT

(Hybrid Mode)

Per : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):

The definition of word ``Tribunal’’ as given under sub-section 90 of Section (2) of the Companies Act, 2013, being that the Tribunal, which has been constituted under Section 408 of the Companies Act, 2013.

2. The Tribunal thus, constituted under the Companies Act, it discharges an adjudicatory function, which exercises and discharge such powers conferred on it, by or under the act or rules and regulations framed under it and for the time being in force.

3. The Tribunal(s) constituted under Section 408 of the Companies Act, 2013, they perform a judicial function determining the rights and liabilities of the parties to the proceedings depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, and are judicial proceedings as per sub-section (4) of Section 424 of the Companies Act.

4. Any Body, which has been constituted under a Statute and discharges an adjudicatory functions, its procedure is required to be governed by specific law, in order to attach a principle of fairness and adherence of principle of natural justice, so as to remove any iota of bias which may or even if there is possibility of bias to creep in, in the functioning of the body which discharges these adjudicatory functions and since Tribunal being a Judicial Body, having been conferred with the powers to draw contempt, its functions and duties are to be performed in the light of the provisions and procedures contained under Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013. Section 424 of the Companies Act is extracted hereunder:-

``Section 424. Procedure before Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal.

(1) The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not, while disposing of any proceeding before it or, as the case may be, an appeal before it, be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice, and, subject to the other provisions of this Act 1[or of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016)] and of any rules made hereunder, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have power to regulate their own procedure.

(2) The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging their functions under this Act 1[or under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016)], the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:--

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(d) subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), requisitioning any public record or document or a copy of such record or document from any office;

(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;

(f) dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex parte; (g) setting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order passed by it ex parte; and (h) any other matter which may be prescribed.

(3) Any order made by the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal may be enforced by that Tribunal in the same man

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