Back
NCLT Ahmedabad Refuses To Order Where Counsel Was Authorised To Withdraw Petition
The , has firmly declined to invoke its to an order that dismissed a as withdrawn, underscoring that the counsel who made the statement possessed explicit authority under the . The bench, comprising Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma, held that no existed for , thereby rejecting the applicant’s plea to restore the proceedings.
The ruling came on an application filed by Arvind Mukundchand Soni, who sought of an order by which the tribunal had dismissed his as withdrawn. Soni alleged that the resulted from a communication gap with his counsel and was contrary to his instructions. However, the tribunal found that the executed in favour of the counsel expressly authorised , and the subsequent assertion of a misunderstanding did not establish any procedural defect.
The and Its
Soni had originally filed a under , read with the , and . He alleged of the tribunal’s final order dated , as clarified on , in . When the matter was listed on , counsel appearing for Soni sought of the petition, and the tribunal accordingly dismissed it as withdrawn.
Soni then moved , seeking of that order and restoration of the for . He submitted that the petition had been disposed of at the threshold without issuance of notice, any reply from the respondents, or merits adjudication. He contended that the communication gap with his counsel amounted to a warranting under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules.
The Application for
In support of his application, Soni argued that the August 27 order was passed without his knowledge or consent. He emphasised that the had not been heard on merits, and that the was a result of a misunderstanding between him and his counsel. He urged the tribunal to exercise its to correct what he perceived as a .
The tribunal, however, scrutinised the executed in favour of Advocates and . It observed that the document expressly authorised the counsel to “compromise, settle, withdraw, or agree to ” of the matter and all proceedings arising from it. The bench noted that this authority clearly covered the of the , and the statement made by counsel on August 27 was within the scope of that authority.
Legal Reasoning: Authority Under
The bench relied on the ’s ruling in Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh (2015), where the apex court held that counsel requires authority to make a statement that concludes or surrenders a client’s substantive rights. In the present case, the tribunal found that was expressly recorded in the , thereby satisfying the requirement of explicit consent.
The tribunal also noted that Soni had not placed any material showing that the had been restricted or revoked before the August 27 order. His subsequent assertion that he had not intended to withdraw the petition concerned communication between him and his counsel and did not establish any procedural defect in the order itself. The bench emphasised that the fact that the had not been adjudicated on merits did not, by itself, constitute a ground for .
Scope of Under Rule 11
The tribunal referred to established precedents holding that may be exercised in cases involving , , a causing prejudice, , or a . It also noted that the power of cannot be used to rehear a matter or to substitute a party’s for the earlier .
The bench further observed that the August 27 order had granted Soni in accordance with law. The present application, it held, could not be used to undo the simply because the applicant later decided to pursue the same proceeding. “In view of the authorising and absence of any for , no case is made out for exercise of the inherent power under ,” the bench ruled.
Implications for Legal Practice
This decision reinforces the binding nature of a counsel’s authority as recorded in the . Legal professionals must ensure that their clients are fully informed before any or compromise is sought, as the tribunal will not lightly set aside an order passed on the strength of express authorisation. The ruling also clarifies that the inherent power to is not a remedy for a party’s internal communication breakdown with counsel.
For practitioners appearing before the NCLT, this judgment serves as a reminder that once a statement of is made by an authorised counsel, the matter is effectively concluded unless a recognised legal ground for is established. The tribunal’s reliance on the ’s precedent in Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society underscores the high threshold required to overturn such procedural orders.
Conclusion
The NCLT Ahmedabad’s refusal to the order reaffirms the principle that given to counsel under a will be respected by the court. While the tribunal retains under Rule 11, those powers are not available to remedy a party’s misunderstanding or regret over a legally authorised . The decision provides clarity for litigants and advocates alike on the of statements made by counsel within the scope of their authority, and it underscores the importance of clear communication between clients and their legal representatives before any is taken.
