Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

Petitioner Challenges NCLT Order Admitted Under Section 7 IBC on Ground of Non-Pronouncement and Violation of NCLT Rules. High Court of Bombay Issues Rule and Hears Petition Alleging Order Non-Est for Lack of Pronouncement in Open Court.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
Admin
2026-08-09 02:12:44
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

Not mentioned - judgment text incomplete

Headnote

Not mentioned - judgment text incomplete

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the NCLT order dated 22 October 2019 was validly passed when there was no pronouncement in open court as required by Rules 150 and 152(2) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, and whether such non-pronouncement vitiates the order and violates principles of natural justice.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Not mentioned - judgment text incomplete

Law Points

  • order must be pronounced in open court
  • compliance with NCLT Rules 150 and 152(2) mandatory
  • non-pronouncement renders order non est
  • principles of natural justice
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (11) 41

Writ Petition (L) No. 3250 of 2019

2019-11-29

S. C. Dharmadhikari, R. I. Chagla

Janak Dwarkadas, Vikram Nankani, Ankita Singhania, Shailendra S. Kanetkar for petitioner; Rajshekhar V. Govilkar, Dhanesh R. Shah, Shaba Khan, Kinjal Jani for respondents 1 and 2; Ravi Kadam, Zal Andhyarujina, Dhananjay Kumar, Animesh Bisht, Anush Mathkar, Aarant Sarang, Sanjana M., Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas for respondents 3 and 4; B.A. Patel, Deputy Registrar of NCLT, present

Kamal K. Singh

Union of India, Registrar of National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, Value Partners Greater China High Yield Fund, Pinpoint Multi Strategy Fund, Shailendra Ajmera, Rolta India Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai admitting an insolvency petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and initiating corporate insolvency resolution process against Rolta India Ltd.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to quash the NCLT order dated 22 October 2019, a declaration that Section 231 of the IBC is unconstitutional (not pressed), and interim relief to stay the operation of the impugned order.

Filing Reason

Petitioner alleged that the NCLT order was passed without pronouncement in open court and in violation of Rules 150 and 152(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, and that he came to know of the order only when the Interim Resolution Professional took charge of the company's office, and the order was not communicated or uploaded until after the Judicial Member demitted office.

Previous Decisions

The NCLT, Mumbai Bench had reserved the insolvency petition for orders on 20 August 2019 after hearing arguments. On 22 October 2019, the NCLT passed the impugned order admitting the petition and initiating CIRP. The petitioner had no prior notice of the pronouncement, and the order was not listed for pronouncement on the cause list for that date.

Issues

Whether the impugned NCLT order is non est and void for non-compliance with Rules 150 and 152(2) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 which mandate pronouncement of orders in open court.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the NCLT order was never pronounced in open court; the cause list showing listing for pronouncement was created after the fact; the Judicial Member had demitted office shortly after; the order was not communicated, thereby depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to appeal within the prescribed period; the order is in violation of natural justice.

Judgment Excerpts

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai...

Procedural History

The insolvency petition CP (IB) No. 4375/NCLT/MB/2018 was filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 under Section 7 of the IBC before the NCLT, Mumbai. The matter was heard by a Bench of V.P. Singh (Judicial Member) and Rajesh Sharma (Technical Member) and reserved for orders on 20 August 2019. On 22 October 2019, the NCLT passed an order admitting the petition and initiating CIRP against the sixth respondent. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the order.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 7, Section 231
  • National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016: Rule 150, Rule 152(2)
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
NCLT order non-pronouncement natural justice writ jurisdiction Article 226 IBC Section 7 NCLT Rules CIRP oral judgment Bombay High Court

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Upholds Conviction in Cheque Dishonour Case — Rebuttable Presumption Under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act Not Rebutted by Accused. The court dismissed the revision application, affirming the concurrent ... 2026-08-09 02:12:44
Related Judgement
High Court Petitioner Challenges NCLT Order Admitted Under Section 7 IBC on Ground of Non-Pronouncement and Violation of NCLT Rules. High Court of Bombay Issues Rule and Hears Petition Alleging Order Non-Est for Lack of Pronouncement in Open Court. 2026-08-09 02:12:44
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition acquittal natural justice murder Compensation burden of proof Limitation benefit of doubt Article 226 circumstantial evidence
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5184 OF 2026

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Against School Tribunal's Denial of Reinstatement t...

Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Eschew Proof Affidavit in Probate Proceedings. Objections...

Supreme Court Allows Agriculturists' Appeal for Enhanced Compensation; Condones Delay Usin...

Supreme Court Upholds Defendant in Property Sale Deed Dispute; Non-Payment of Balance Cons...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Compulsory Retirement Case Based on Declining Performanc...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal, Sets Aside High Court Judgment for Non-Consideration of Addit...

Lost Your Password?