Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Umang Haribhai Thakkar and others, filed a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court challenging the judgment dated 09.02.2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad, in Company Petition No.417 of 2026 and IA No.45 of 2026. The petitioners contended that the NCLT had heard the matter on 06.02.2026 and reserved it for judgment. However, the daily cause list uploaded on 07.02.2026 did not include the listing for pronouncement. On 09.02.2026, a separate list was uploaded in the morning, and the judgment was pronounced without proper intimation to the petitioners. This allegedly violated Rule 89 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, which requires that the cause list for pronouncement be published in advance. The petitioners argued that this lack of notice caused grave prejudice, as CIRP proceedings were initiated against them, and they were deprived of the opportunity to seek a stay of the order before approaching a higher forum. The High Court, after hearing the submissions, found merit in the petitioners' grievance. It held that the NCLT's action was in breach of Rule 89 and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned judgment and directed the NCLT to comply with Rule 89 before pronouncing the order afresh, ensuring that the petitioners have an opportunity to seek stay if necessary.
Headnote
A) Company Law - NCLT Procedure - Pronouncement of Judgment - Rule 89 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 - The petitioners challenged the NCLT order on the ground that the judgment was pronounced without prior intimation, as the cause list did not reflect the listing and a separate list was uploaded only on the morning of pronouncement. The High Court held that such action violated Rule 89 and caused prejudice as the petitioners were deprived of the opportunity to seek stay. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh pronouncement with proper notice. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the NCLT's failure to provide proper intimation of the pronouncement of judgment in accordance with Rule 89 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, warrants quashing of the impugned order.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed the impugned judgment dated 09.02.2026 passed by the NCLT and directed the NCLT to comply with Rule 89 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 before pronouncing the order afresh, ensuring the petitioners have an opportunity to seek stay.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Rule 89 of NCLT Rules 2016
- Pronouncement of Judgment
- Cause List
- Opportunity to Seek Stay
