Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2020 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 130 - HC - Companies LawProceedings in NCLT - part physical and part virtual hearing - Maintainability of application - infringement of Fundamental Rights - learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ application essentially on the ground that none of the fundamental rights or any legal rights of the appellant herein could be said to have been infringed by the NCLT in adopting a particular mode of hearing - the learned Single Judge rejected the writ application by imposing costs of ₹ 10,000/-. Whether the learned Single Judge committed any error in rejecting the writ application? HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION [2013 (2) TMI 381 - SUPREME COURT] has held that Article 227 of the Constitution stipulates that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This power of superintendence also extends to the administrative functioning of these courts and tribunals - It is expected that all the High Courts shall keep a close watch on the functioning of DRTs and DRATs, which fall within their respective jurisdictions. The High Courts shall ensure a smooth, efficient and transparent working of the said Tribunals. It would have been appropriate in the larger interest of justice for the learned Single Judge to dispose of the petition by issuing appropriate directions in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution rather than outright rejecting the writ application and that too with costs of ₹ 10,000/-. The materials on record do indicate that there is a acute problem faced by many lawyers in the NCLT at Ahmedabad as regards the mode and manner of the functioning of the Courts. It goes without saying that the procedure that may be followed must be consistent, and at the same time, should be reasonable so as not to put anyone in difficulty. If the Court No.2 of the NCLT at Ahmedabad has been very consistent with the mode of hearing, then we see no good reason why the Court No.1 should give any reason for the lawyers to redress so many grievances. In any form of administration, some difficulties are bound to be experienced, but, some rational approach should be adopted, by which, the difficulties are eased and no scope is left for anyone to complain. The reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order that there is no contemporaneous record to indicate that part physical and part virtual hearing is going on before the Tribunal, prima facie, appears to be erroneous - if the Tribunal wants to go for physical hearing of any particular matter, it may go for it, but, at the same time, it must seek the consent of all the learned counsel appearing in the litigation and only thereafter, it may proceed. However, it should not happen that one set of lawyers would appear before the Tribunal physically and the Tribunal would take up the matter, hear those lawyers and decide the matter without the consent of the other set of lawyers appearing for the different parties. Such practice is bound to create hue and cry. Appeal disposed off.
|