The Supreme Court recently made it clear that any "request" made by it to any court or tribunal must be construed strictly as a binding direction [Sona Bansal v. Vashisht Kumar Goyal & Ors].
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran made the remark as it pulled up the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) for failing to hear an appeal despite a request by the top court.
"When the Supreme Court makes a request to any Court or Tribunal, it has to be construed as a direction and not just a request. It is one thing that the Supreme Court earnestly requests in the hope that the Court or the Tribunal would abide by the request and do the needful. However, today, we make it very clear that if there is any request made by the Supreme Court to any Court or Tribunal, the same shall be treated as a direction and non-compliance of such direction shall be looked into very seriously," the Bench ordered.
When the Supreme Court makes a request to any Court or Tribunal, it has to be construed as a direction and not just a request... non-compliance of such direction shall be looked into very seriously.Supreme Court
The Bench was hearing an application in a dispute arising from an interim order of the NCLAT's Principal Bench at New Delhi.
On July 15, the top court had made an "earnest request" to the NCLAT to hear the appeal on July 23. This request came after the Bench was informed that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had already reserved orders on an insolvency petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
However, on October 27, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the applicant, informed the Court that the NCLAT had not heard the appeal till date. In the interim, the NCLT pronounced its reserved order and admitted the company into insolvency.
Expressing dismay over the delay, the Bench observed that judicial requests stem from institutional deference rather than administrative weakness.
"We are quite disturbed with the manner in which the NCLAT has conducted itself in the present litigation. The request made is out of deference to their position and to ensure that the judicial office they hold is not belittled in any manner," the Court recorded.
The Bench issued notice returnable on November 19 and sought a formal explanation from the appellate tribunal.
"The NCLAT shall offer its explanation as to why the matter has not been heard till this date, despite our specific order referred to above," the Bench directed.
The Court also ordered that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) shall not be constituted under the ongoing insolvency proceedings in the meantime.
[Read Order]