Case at a Glance
In July 2026 the Supreme Court made an “earnest request” that the NCLAT hear a pending company appeal on 23 July 2026, because the NCLT had reserved orders on a Section 7 IBC application. The NCLAT did not hear it, and the NCLT meanwhile admitted the Section 7 application. Saying it was “quite disturbed”, the Supreme Court held that its request to a court or tribunal “has to be construed as a direction and not just a request”. It called for the NCLAT’s explanation and directed that no Committee of Creditors be constituted in the meantime.
On 15 July 2026, the Supreme Court disposed of appeals against interim orders dated 17 June 2026 and 29 June 2026 passed in I.A. No. 4230 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) No. 210 of 2026. The relief sought had included permission for the respondent company to raise capital by way of a rights issue. Finding it difficult to decide the disputed facts, the Court left all parties free to raise their contentions before the NCLAT, and made an earnest request that the NCLAT hear the main matter on 23 July 2026, since the NCLT had reserved its order on a Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
In the present miscellaneous application, counsel told the Court that the NCLAT had not heard the matter as requested, and that the NCLT had in the meantime pronounced its reserved order and admitted the Section 7 application. The Court condoned the delay in filing the application and heard the applicant, respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 4, a bank.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is a lower court or tribunal free to ignore a ‘request’ made by the Supreme Court in its order to hear a matter on a particular date?
Courtesy Is Not Weakness
The Court explained that its request was made out of respect for the NCLAT and to preserve the dignity of judicial office, but that such a request “has to be construed as a direction and not just a request”, and non-compliance “shall be looked into very seriously.” It relied on Spencer and Co. Ltd. v. Vishwadarshan Distributors Pvt. Ltd., (1994) 12 SC CK 0053, (1995) 1 SCC 259, on judicial courtesy and the use of non-commanding language between institutions, and on Bayer India Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (1993) 02 SC CK 0008, (1993) 3 SCC 29, where the Court had expressed concern at a High Court not heeding its request. It regarded the present situation as more serious than the mere inaction in Bayer India.
Invoking Articles 142 and 144 of the Constitution, under which all authorities must act in aid of the Supreme Court, the Court stressed that polite expression does not diminish authority and that courtesy should not be mistaken for weakness. It noted that the NCLAT’s next date was 17 November 2026, issued notice returnable on 19 November 2026, permitted dasti service, required the NCLAT to explain why the matter had not been heard despite its earlier order, and directed that no Committee of Creditors be constituted meanwhile.
What the Court Actually Held
- A request by the Supreme Court to a court or tribunal must be construed as a direction, not merely a request; non-compliance will be viewed very seriously.
- Articles 142 and 144 require all authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court; polite wording does not dilute the authority of its orders.
- The NCLAT must explain why the matter was not heard despite the Court’s specific earlier order; notice was issued returnable on 19 November 2026, with dasti service permitted.
- In the meantime, no Committee of Creditors is to be constituted.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It clarifies for all courts and tribunals that soft language in a Supreme Court order carries binding force.
- It shows the Court’s willingness to step in to protect parties when its directions are not followed, here by halting CoC formation.
- It is significant for IBC litigants, where the timing of NCLAT hearings and NCLT admission can decide the fate of a company.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Litigants
- If a court or tribunal ignores a Supreme Court request to hear your matter, you can return to the Supreme Court.
- Interim protection, such as a bar on CoC formation, may be granted while the explanation is sought.
For Counsel
- Treat any Supreme Court ‘request’ as a binding timeline and press for compliance before the lower forum.
- Cite Spencer and Co. Ltd. v. Vishwadarshan Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and Bayer India Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra on judicial courtesy and hierarchy.
- Move promptly; delay in filing may need condonation.
Key Takeaways
- A Supreme Court request is a direction.
- Non-compliance will be viewed very seriously.
- NCLAT asked to explain why the matter was not heard.
- No Committee of Creditors to be constituted meanwhile.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the NCLAT fail to do?
It did not hear the company appeal on 23 July 2026 as the Supreme Court had requested on 15 July 2026, while the NCLT went on to admit the Section 7 application.
What interim protection did the Court give?
It directed that no Committee of Creditors be constituted in the meantime.
Is this a final judgment?
No. It is an order in a miscellaneous application issuing notice, returnable on 19 November 2026; it does not carry an INSC citation in the text read.
Conclusion
Sona Bansal is a firm reminder about the hierarchy of courts. The Supreme Court may phrase its orders courteously, but tribunals must read them as commands.
Practical takeaway: When a Supreme Court order ‘requests’ a hearing on a date, the lower forum must comply; if it does not, the Supreme Court can call for an explanation and grant interim protection.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com