The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has officially expunged adverse judicial observations made against a legal practitioner who requested the timely uploading of an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) . In a decisive move to uphold the professional reputation of the advocate, the appellate body ruled that the remarks made by the lower court were "totally uncalled for" and lacked a substantive basis. The ruling provides significant clarity on the role of legal counsel in pursuing administrative transparency and the boundaries of professional conduct when dealing with court registries.

The dispute originated from the insolvency proceedings of Hynite Farms Private Limited . On June 5, 2026 , the NCLT pronounced an order regarding the approval of a resolution plan . However, the formal copy of the order was not uploaded to the tribunal’s digital repository for eighteen days. Mrinal Harsh Vardhan , acting as counsel for the Resolution Professional (RP) , sent an email to the Court Master of the concerned NCLT bench, inquiring about the status of the order's publication. The communication explained that the document was urgently required to facilitate the implementation of the approved resolution plan , specifically in light of Supreme Court mandates requiring the successful resolution applicant to coordinate with the NOIDA authority .

Following this inquiry, the NCLT issued orders on June 5, 2026 , and July 6, 2026 , containing strong critical observations regarding the advocate’s conduct. Aggrieved by these remarks, which he argued were made without providing him an opportunity to defend his actions, Vardhan challenged the observations before the NCLAT. The appellant contended that his email was a polite, professional request born out of the client’s pressing need to finalize legal steps, and that he held the highest regard for the dignity of the court.

Defining Professional Advocacy and Administrative Accountability

During the appellate hearings, the bench comprising Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Member (Technical) Naresh Salecha scrutinized the content of the contested email. Upon evaluation, the NCLAT found no evidence of impropriety or scandal in the advocate's communication. The tribunal observed that the request was inherently linked to the duty of counsel to protect the interests of their client.

"We understand the anxiety of the Appellant as the matter had travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereafter the plan was approved by the Learned Adjudicating Authority ," the tribunal noted in its order. The court further emphasized that the delay in administrative processing—specifically the failure to upload an open-court order for over two weeks—justified a follow-up inquiry from the legal representative. By validating this, the NCLAT affirmed that advocates are not merely passive participants in the legal process but are tasked with ensuring that procedural timelines are adhered to, especially when complex corporate resolution plans depend on the availability of formal judicial records.

The appellate bench underscored that the nature of the email remained strictly within professional bounds. The tribunal observed that the language used by the advocate was "quite soft" and solely focused on the necessity of obtaining the certified copy to proceed with statutory compliance . This assessment effectively neutralized the criticism previously leveled at the practitioner, distinguishing between "anxiety for order execution" and actual interference with the court’s functioning.

Procedural Fairness and the Right to be Heard

A critical component of the NCLAT’s decision involved the lack of procedural fairness experienced by the advocate at the lower tribunal level. The appellant had argued that the adverse remarks were made ex parte and without a hearing, thereby depriving him of the chance to explain the intent behind his communication. This omission in the NCLT proceedings was implicitly addressed by the appellate court, which granted the relief requested without the need for prolonged litigation.

Interestingly, the respondents in the case, including the counsel for the Resolution Professional and the representative for Hynite Farms Private Limited , signaled their lack of objection to the expunction of the remarks. Their stance further facilitated a swift resolution, allowing the NCLAT to set the record straight without reopening the substantive aspects of the insolvency case.

Impact on Judicial and Professional Standards

The NCLAT’s order serves as a reminder of the nuanced balance required between maintaining court decorum and respecting the advocate's duty of zealous advocacy. By explicitly stating that it found "no error in the act of the Appellant in sending an e-mail to the Court Master ," the tribunal has established a practical benchmark for how counsel may interact with registry officials to secure timely judicial documentation.

The judgment also addresses the systemic concerns related to the time taken to upload court orders. In complex insolvency matters involving multi-agency coordination, the gap between the oral pronouncement and the availability of the written order can create significant legal bottlenecks. The NCLAT recognized this reality, validating the counsel’s role in flagging these lapses to ensure that the rule of law is not hindered by administrative delays.

However, the NCLAT was careful to circumscribe the scope of its relief. The order stipulates that this expunction is specific to the current matter and cannot be leveraged as a precedent in unrelated contempt proceedings pending before the Adjudicating Authority . This ensures that while the specific grievance of the advocate is resolved, the broader authority of the NCLT to maintain order in its proceedings remains intact, provided that such powers are exercised with appropriate notice and fairness.

As the proceedings in the Hynite Farms matter continue, this development provides a clean slate for the legal team involved. With the adverse observations now removed from the record, the focus returns to the execution of the resolution plan and the necessary coordination with the NOIDA authority . The case highlights the importance of open communication channels within the legal system and reinforces the principle that legitimate administrative inquiries by counsel should not be misconstrued as contemptuous or unprofessional behavior. The decision stands as an affirmation that judicial criticism must be rooted in clear evidence of misconduct, and that advocates retain the right to advocate for procedural efficiency in the interest of their clients.