NCLAT Expunges Remarks Against Advocate in Insolvency Proceedings — Upholds Professional Conduct. The remarks made by the Learned Adjudicating Authority were found to be uncalled for and were expunged, affirming the Appellant's professional integrity.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by Mrinal Harsh Vardhan against remarks made by the Learned Adjudicating Authority in two orders dated 05.06.2026 and 06.07.2026 in CP (IB) No. 380 of 2020. The Appellant, a practicing Advocate, sought to have certain observations expunged, arguing that they adversely affected his professional reputation and were made without giving him an opportunity to defend his actions. The Appellant explained that he sent an email to the Court Master after the order pronounced on 05.06.2026 was not uploaded for 18 days, expressing his anxiety to obtain the order for necessary steps towards implementing the approved Resolution Plan. The Respondents did not object to the expungement of the remarks. The Tribunal reviewed the email and found the language to be polite and reasonable, aimed solely at facilitating the uploading of the order. The Tribunal concluded that the remarks were uncalled for and ordered their expungement, while clarifying that this order should not benefit any other party in pending contempt proceedings. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Professional Conduct - Remarks Against Advocate - Expungement of Uncalled Remarks - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The remarks made by the Learned Adjudicating Authority against the Appellant were found to be uncalled for and were expunged. The court noted that the Appellant's email to the Court Master was a legitimate request for uploading an order pronounced in open court, and there was no ill intention behind it. Held that the observations were unjustified and should be removed from the record (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the remarks made by the Learned Adjudicating Authority against the Appellant were justified.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was disposed of with the observation that the remarks made by the Learned Adjudicating Authority in specified paragraphs were expunged, with a clarification that no benefit of this order shall be taken by any other party regarding pending contempt proceedings.

Law Points

  • Professional conduct
  • expungement of remarks
  • duty of counsel
  • communication with court
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (10) 24

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1937 of 2026 & I.A. No. 7360 of 2026

2026-10-09

Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Naresh Salecha

Mr. Chitranshul Sinha, Mr. Aaditya Mishra, Ms. Srishti Aggarwal, Ms. Aayushi Kiran, Mr. Sajeev Deora, Mr. Rishi Singhal, Ms. Tannu Rana

Mrinal Harsh Vardhan

Hynite Farms Pvt. Ltd.

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against remarks made by the Learned Adjudicating Authority in insolvency proceedings.

Remedy Sought

The Appellant sought to expunge certain remarks from the record.

Filing Reason

The remarks were deemed uncalled for and adversely affected the Appellant's professional reputation.

Issues

Justification of remarks against the Appellant Professional conduct of the Appellant

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that the remarks were uncalled for and affected his professional reputation. The Respondents did not object to the expungement of the remarks.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the remarks against the Appellant were unjustified and should be expunged, affirming the principle that advocates should be allowed to communicate with the court without fear of adverse remarks.

Judgment Excerpts

the observations which have been made by the Learned Adjudicating Authority against him would also adversely reflect on his profession the language of the same is quite soft and it has only been stated therein that the order was pronounced on 05.06.2026

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against observations made in two orders dated 05.06.2026 and 06.07.2026 in CP (IB) No. 380 of 2020.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Construction of Will Denying Appellant's Claim Under Clause 12. Will Construction Holds That No Vested or Contingent Interest Arises Unless Widow Predeceased Testator and No Adoption Occurred Before Testator's Death.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Returning Officer's Rejection of Hereditary Village Officers' Nominations in Election Dispute. Hereditary Patels and Shanbhogs Are Holders of Offices of Profit Under Government Under Article 191 of Constitution and Section 100(1...