Justice KV Viswanathan Recuses After Reserving Judgment On Discovering Prior Appearance As Lawyer For Appellant

In a rare instance, the Supreme Court recalled an order reserving judgment after it came to light that one of the judges who heard the matter had previously appeared as counsel for a party.Justice KV Viswanathan on Wednesday recused from a civil appeal filed by Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited.A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Viswanathan had earlier heard the appeal and reserved judgment on March 17, 2026. Thereafter, Justice Vishwanathan recused, as it was later known that he had appeared as a counsel for the appellant in a related Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.In view of this, the Court recalled the order reserving judgment and directed that the matter be listed before another bench as may be directed by the Chief Justice of India.“After the judgment came to be reserved, it has come to the notice of Hon'ble K.V. Viswanathan, J. is that His Lordship had appeared as a counsel for the appellant herein in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Principal borrower (corporate debtor). In such circumstances, the order dated 17.3.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No.2786/2022 is recalled”, the Court ordered.The appeal was taken up by the bench of Justice Pardiwala and Justice Vishwanathan on four occasions from January 1, 2026 to March 17, 2026, including for final hearing, before Justice Vishwanathan recused on Wednesday.In an earlier case involving the recusal of a High Court judge after reserving judgment, the Supreme Court has held that recusal is a matter of a judge's discretion and declined to frame guidelines on the issue.The present case arises from insolvency proceedings initiated by Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited against M/s Dugal Projects Development Company Private Limited, which acted as the corporate guarantor for a loan taken by M/s Sima Hotels and Resorts Ltd., the principal borrower, for a hotel project in Goa.On May 8, 2019, the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai admitted insolvency proceedings against the guarantor but rejected a similar application against the principal borrower. This led to appeals before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.The Appellate Tribunal held that the insolvency application filed on July 10, 2018 was barred by limitation. The insolvency proceedings were set aside as time-barred. Thus, the financial creditor filed the present appeal in 2022.Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 2786/2022Case Title – Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited (AARC) v. Raju Chappakal Pappu & Ors.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Justice KV Viswanathan Recuses After Reserving Judgment On Discovering Prior Appearance As Lawyer For Appellant

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags