AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 28.11.2025 passed by Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh in CA No.48/2022, 121/2022, 158/2023, 115/2025, 117/2025, 205/2025, 206/2025 in CP No.8/Chd/Hry/2022. The impugned order is to the following effect:-
“Mr Karan Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to advance arguments, which he began to do. During the course of which, he was repeatedly requested to brief and concise in his arguments. However, he continues to insist on reading the entire pleadings. He has already been granted more than one hour to address the arguments, yet he is still seeking substantially more time, which cannot be allowed. He is accordingly directed to file a short note within three days, along with supporting judgments, covering the point of his arguments, which will be considered while deciding the matter. Heard the Ld Counsels for the respondents. They also directed to file a short note covering their points of arguments alongwith supporting judgments within three days. Heard. Order reserved.”
It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant the impugned order denies an opportunity of being heard and thus violates the principles of natural justice. He referred to Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 to say the guiding factor qua the procedure to be adopted by the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal, is natural justice. Further he referred to Rule 44 of the NCLT Rules which reads the Tribunal shall notify the date and place of hearing. However, the rule does not mention the time of hearing to be given to each of the party and without giving a time limit in advance to the Ld. counsels, the Ld. counsel cannot be abruptly stopped in mid way of his arguments to say one hour is enough for his arguments and rest he should file written note(s). It is argued if this procedure is to be adhered to, then the time limit be given in advance to the learned counsels so that they can prepare and conclude their arguments within such time limit, otherwise not giving a complete hearing to the satisfaction of the Ld. Counsel, there shall be denial of hearing and be a violation of principles of natural justice.
The learned counsel for the Respondent argued otherwise stating inter alia once a matter is reserved for orders, no appeal shall lie to seek further hearings in the matter.
Heard.
If one peruse the order dated 28th November, 2025 it shows various applications were listed on the said date viz CAs 205/2025, 206/2025, 115/2025 and the notices were issued on these applications but as alleged such applications were not taken up and the Company Petition was heard and reserved for orders. The grievance is the impugned order does not mention as to what shall be the fate of such applications, listed on that day as only the arguments on the Company Petition No.8/2022 were heard. As alleged some of such applications were to bring on record subsequent facts viz issuance of the rights issue which further curtailed the percentage of shares held by the appellants herein and needed to be heard, as would have demonstrated subsequently acts of Oppression and Mismanagement on the part of respondents.
On perusal of record, however, we find an order dated 31.10.2025 wherein both applications CA No.205 (supra_and 206 (supra) were taken up and both the parties on these applications were heard and both were asked to complete pleadings etc. Company Petition No.8/2022 was, however, adjourned to 14.11.2025 and then to 28.11.2025, when it was finally heard; arguments were got concluded; the appellants were directed to give a note of submissions and the matter was reserved for orders.
Further admittedly, the Ld. Bench had presided over at about 12.15 PM and this matter was called at around 12.50 PM. Though it is alleged the counsel was ready to advance arguments in CA 205/2025 and 206/2025 and also in CA 115/2025 but the Ld. Members insisted the Ld counsel to argue his main Company Petition and such applications shall be heard after the arguments are heard in the main company petition.
The counsel for the appellant though objected and submitted the miscellaneous applications, being result of further acts of Oppression and Mismanagement needed be decided prior to hearing of Company Petition, but the Ld. NCLT did not adhere to his submissions and rather heard the arguments in company petition uptil 1.30 PM and thereafter instructed the Ld.counsel for the appellant to prepare his arguments during lunch time and to reassemble at 2.30 PM. The arguments were then heard at 2.30 PM and thereafter at 2.45 PM, the Ld. NCLT instructed the Ld.counsel to finish his arguments by 3 PM and thereafter, the impugned order was passed. Heard.
We have perused the impugned order. It records more than one hour was given to the learned counsel for the appellant to represent his case and during this period he was repeatedly requested to be brief and concise in his arguments, but he insisted on reading the entire pleading which the Ld. NCLT refused to allow and directed him to file a short note within three days alongwith supporting judgements covering his point of argument which shall be considered while deciding the matter. These facts do not show no hearing was ever given to the appellant for representing his case. The law only requires a reasonable and fair opportunity to be given to the parties to represent their cases and admittedly the Ld. NCLT has power to regulate its own procedure.
In P.N. Eswara Iyer and others Vs Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (1980) 4 Supreme court Cases 680, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
19.xxxxx The right to be heard is of the essence but hearing does not mean more than fair opportunity to present one’s point on a dispute, followed by a fair consideration thereof by fair minded judges. Let us not remanticise this process nor stretch it to snap it. Presentation can be written or oral, depending on the justice of situation. Where oral persuasiveness is necessary it is unfair to exclude it and, therefore, arbitrary too. But where oral presentation is not that essential, its exclusion is not obnoxious. What is crucial is the guarantee of the application of an instructed, intelligent, impartial and open mind to the points presented.
37.xxxxSuch an attitude is an overreaction to argumentum ad nauseum. But we must importantly underscore that while lawyer’s advocacy cannot be made to judicial measure especially if judges are impatient, there is a strong case for processing argumentation by rationalization, streamlining, abbreviation and in, special situations, elimination. Review proceedings in the Supreme Court belongs to the last category. There is no rigidity about forensic strategies and the court must retain a flexible power in regard to limiting the time of oral arguments or, in exceptional cases, eliminating orality altogether, the paramount principle being fair justice.
Admittedly in the present case, the appellant was given an oral hearing for an hour and further was requested to file his notes of submissions, hence it cannot be said fair opportunity to represent was not given, thus we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. However, we request the Ld. NCLT to consider and decide the pending applications, if any, alongwith the main Company Petition, since it had heard both the parties on such applications too on 31.10.2025.
With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
Pending applications Nos.7871 and 7872 of 2025 are also disposed of.