• Mandatory vs. Directory Provisions - The distinction hinges on whether strict compliance is required or substantial compliance suffices. Mandatory provisions require exact adherence, while directory provisions permit flexibility, with substantial compliance being acceptable. ["INDEPENDENT SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED VS GIRISH SRIRAM JUNEJA AND ANR - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal"], ["RUKUVOTU RINGA VS MEYALEMLA - Gauhati"], ["FERNANDO v. ANTHONY"], ["CHEN LIM HOI @ LIM QUAY HWA vs PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KUALA LANGAT; WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN BHD (I.... - High Court Malaya Shah Alam"], ["GOH BENG HOCK vs PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KUALA LANGAT; WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN BHD (INTERESTED PART.... - High Court Malaya Shah Alam"], ["Akhtar Ali Rizvi, S/o. Tahar Ali Rizvi VS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department - Chhattisgarh"], ["Shankar Lal Verma S/o Late Bukhan Lal Verma VS State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"], ["Vasudeva Nanayakkara Member of Parliament Ratnapura District vs Hon. Sagala Ratnayaka Minister of Ports and Shipping and Southern Development and others - - Court Of Appeal"]

• Legal Interpretation of Shall and Statutory Language - The use of shall often indicates a mandatory requirement, but the overall purpose and context of the statute determine whether a provision is mandatory or directory. Courts analyze legislative intent and the consequences of non-compliance. ["FERNANDO v. ANTHONY"], ["CHEN LIM HOI @ LIM QUAY HWA vs PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KUALA LANGAT; WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN BHD (I.... - High Court Malaya Shah Alam"], ["GOH BENG HOCK vs PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KUALA LANGAT; WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN BHD (INTERESTED PART.... - High Court Malaya Shah Alam"], ["Akhtar Ali Rizvi, S/o. Tahar Ali Rizvi VS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department - Chhattisgarh"], ["Vasudeva Nanayakkara Member of Parliament Ratnapura District vs Hon. Sagala Ratnayaka Minister of Ports and Shipping and Southern Development and others - - Court Of Appeal"]

• Case Law and Judicial Viewpoints - Courts have held that procedural provisions like Rule 2(1) of the Civil Appellate Rules and s 38(2) of the LAA 1960 are mandatory, and non-compliance is fatal. Conversely, some rules, such as Rule 3A, are considered directory, allowing flexibility. The Supreme Court and High Courts emphasize analyzing legislative intent and purpose. ["FERNANDO v. ANTHONY"], ["CHEN LIM HOI @ LIM QUAY HWA vs PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KUALA LANGAT; WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN BHD (I.... - High Court Malaya Shah Alam"], ["GOH BENG HOCK vs PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KUALA LANGAT; WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN BHD (INTERESTED PART.... - High Court Malaya Shah Alam"], ["Kamal Das VS Learned Addl. Commissioner Lucknow - Allahabad"], ["RUKUVOTU RINGA VS MEYALEMLA - Gauhati"], ["Akhtar Ali Rizvi, S/o. Tahar Ali Rizvi VS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department - Chhattisgarh"], ["Shankar Lal Verma S/o Late Bukhan Lal Verma VS State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"], ["Vasudeva Nanayakkara Member of Parliament Ratnapura District vs Hon. Sagala Ratnayaka Minister of Ports and Shipping and Southern Development and others - - Court Of Appeal"]

• Implication for Rule 25(1) of RCA 1972 - Based on the principles above and the judicial consensus, Rule 25(1) of RCA 1972 is interpreted as a directory provision, not mandatory. This means compliance with it is not strictly obligatory, and substantial compliance may suffice. This aligns with the general trend of courts distinguishing between mandatory and directory rules, especially when the provision's purpose permits flexibility. General synthesis from sources

Analysis and Conclusion

The collected authorities indicate that Rule 25(1) of the RCA 1972 is not mandatory but directory in nature. The courts emphasize examining legislative intent, the language used, and the purpose of the rule. Since no strict penalty or consequence for non-compliance is established, and the rule's purpose allows for flexibility, it is reasonable to conclude that Rule 25(1) is directory, permitting substantial compliance rather than strict adherence.

References:- INDEPENDENT SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED VS GIRISH SRIRAM JUNEJA AND ANR - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal_NCAT_735_ND_2023_Company_Appeal_AT_Ins_- KANNAN LETCHUMANAN vs PP - 2024 MarsdenLR 661- FERNANDO v. ANTHONY- RUKUVOTU RINGA VS MEYALEMLA - Gauhati- Kamal Das VS Learned Addl. Commissioner Lucknow - Allahabad- CHEN LIM HOI @ LIM QUAY HWA vs PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KUALA LANGAT; WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN BHD (I.... - High Court Malaya Shah Alam- Akhtar Ali Rizvi, S/o. Tahar Ali Rizvi VS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department - Chhattisgarh- Shankar Lal Verma S/o Late Bukhan Lal Verma VS State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh- Vasudeva Nanayakkara Member of Parliament Ratnapura District vs Hon. Sagala Ratnayaka Minister of Ports and Shipping and Southern Development and others - - Court Of Appeal