The Supreme Court has observed that any request made by it to a court or tribunal must be construed as a direction, warning that non-compliance with such directions would be viewed seriously.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran has expressed displeasure over the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) failure to hear a company appeal despite an earlier order requesting it to do so.
“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.”, the Court observed.
The Court was hearing a miscellaneous application, where in its earlier order, the Court had requested the NCLAT to ensure that the matter was heard on July 23, considering that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had reserved its order on an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
However, on Tuesday (October 27), the applicant's counsel informed the Court that the NCLAT had not heard the matter. In the meantime, the NCLT had pronounced its order admitting the Section 7 IBC application.
Expressing concern over the development, the Court stated that its earlier request had been made out of deference to the NCLAT's position and to ensure that the judicial office held by its members was not belittled.
The Court clarified that although it may make an earnest request in the expectation that a court or tribunal would act accordingly, such a request must be treated as a direction.
“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 Court said.
As a result, the notice was issued, and an explanation was sought from the NCLAT as to why the matter had not been heard despite its earlier order.