[BREAKING] Supreme Court expunges "personal, unsavory" remarks by Chairperson led 5-member Bench of NCLAT against 3-member Bench

The Supreme Court on Friday expunged allegedly "personal" and "unsavory" comments made against three sitting members of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in a judgment by a five-member Bench led by acting chairperson, Justice Bansi Lal Bhat [Justice (Retd.) Jarat Kumar Jain v. Bishal Jaiswal]..Even before the hearing could proceed, Justice Rohinton Nariman who heading the Bench said, "we have gone through the case. We will straightway expunge. Observations made against members of the tribunal stands expunged from the record.".The petitioners, Justice (Retd) Jarat Kumar Jain, Bavinder Singh and Vijai Pratap Singh were all part of a 3-member Bench of NCLAT which had referred a matter to the 5-member Bench.They moved the top court taking exception to the statements in the 5-member Bench judgment that the petitioners in their referral judgment adopted "cut paste methodology" and embarked on a "painful misadventure" to refer the matter to the 5-member Bench..BREAKING: Three sitting members of NCLAT move Supreme Court to expunge "personal, unsavory" remarks by Chairperson led 5-member Bench .The proceedings before the 5-member bench had arisen pursuant to a reference made by the 3-member Bench comprising the three petitioners on September 25, 2020.The reference was made in view of their opinion that an earlier 5-member Bench decision of the NCLAT in the matter of V Padmakumar vs Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund was in direct conflict with Supreme Court decisions..The point of law was that Supreme Court had earlier taken the view that "entries in the books of accounts or balance sheets would amount to an acknowledgment of the debt."However, NCLAT in V Padmakumar had taken a contrary view and held that entry in the company's statutory balance sheet would not amount to an acknowledgment of debt by the company..When the matter came up before the 5-judge Bench pursuant to the reference, the 5-judge Bench in its order termed the reference by 3-judge Bench as "inappropriate", incompetent" and a "misadventure".."It was a matter of judicial discipline for the referral bench to follow the judgment of the 5 member bench in V Padmakumar's case as a binding precedent and not question the correctness of the judgment by adopting cut and paste methodology in branding the five member bench judgment in V Padmakumar's case as so very incorrect divorced of the context...this brings us to consider the most painful aspect of the misadventure undertaken by the Referral bench in making the reference which have found to be incompetent," the five-member Bench said.The members of the three-member Bench then approached the apex court seeking to expunge the remarks against them. .The plea filed by advocate Amit Sharma stated that while it is well within the jurisdiction of the larger bench to reiterate or approve the decision of the earlier larger bench decisions of the NCLAT, the Bench should not venture into making personal comments against the members of the referral bench only because it finds the order of reference wither not maintainable or not in accordance with the position of law on the subject.