The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) recently held that an advocate cannot be faulted for sending an email to the court master of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) requesting that a judicial order passed by NCLT be uploaded on its website [Mrinal Vs Hynite]

The order copy had remained unavailable for 18 days after the pronouncement.

A bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha deleted the adverse remarks made by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against advocate Mrinal Harsh Vardhan, who had emailed the NCLT court master asking that the order be uploaded.

The NCLAT found that the email was polite and merely reflected the advocate's anxiety to obtain the order.

"Naturally when the order which was pronounced in the open Court on 05.06.2026 could not be uploaded for 18 days, we do not find any error in the act of the Appellant in sending an e-mail to the Court Master of the concerned Bench, requesting only for the uplodation of the order which was admittedly pronounced in the open Court on 05.06.2026," the NCLAT observed.

The case arose from insolvency proceedings concerning Hynite Farms Private Limited.

On June 5, the NCLT pronounced an order concerning the approval of a resolution plan. However, the order was not uploaded for several days.

Vardhan, who represented the Resolution Professional, subsequently emailed the Court Master requesting that the same be published on the NCLT website.

The email explained that the order was urgently required to implement the approved resolution plan, particularly in view of Supreme Court directions requiring coordination with the NOIDA authority.

However, the NCLT made adverse observations concerning the advocate's conduct in its orders dated June 5 and July 6.

Aggrieved, Vardhan approached the NCLAT, arguing that the email was neither scandalous nor improper. He also submitted that the remarks could adversely affect his professional reputation and had been made without hearing him.

The respondents did not oppose his request.

After examining the email, the NCLAT agreed that the advocate had done nothing wrong.

"We have also perused the e-mail which clearly shows that the language of the same is quite soft," the NCLAT observed.

It also noted that the order had not been uploaded for 18 days despite being pronounced in open court.

Accordingly, the NCLAT expunged the adverse observations while clarifying that its decision could not be relied upon in other pending contempt of court proceedings.

The appellant was represented by advocates Chitranshul Sinha, Aaditya Mishra, Srishti Aggarwal and Aayushi Kiran.

Advocate Sajeev Deora appeared for the Resolution Professional while advocates Rishi Singhal and Tannu Rana represented Hynite Farms.

[Read Judgment]