Principal Bench of NCLAT rules that counsel's email seeking upload of a resolution plan order was courteous and justified; reprimands Adjudicating Authority for uncalled remarks without hearing
In a significant judgment dated October 9, 2026, the Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, quashed adverse observations made by the Adjudicating Authority against Advocate Mrinal Harsh Vardhan. The appellant had sent a polite email to the Court Master of the concerned NCLT bench requesting the upload of an order pronounced in open court on June 5, 2026, related to the implementation of an approved resolution plan under insolvency proceedings.
The appellant, representing the Resolution Professional in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Hynite Farms Pvt. Ltd., had sought the certified copy of the order to expedite necessary steps for the resolution plan's implementation. However, the order was not uploaded for over 18 days, prompting the counsel to send a courteous reminder email. The Adjudicating Authority, without affording the advocate any opportunity of hearing, made adverse remarks against him, questioning his professional conduct.
On appeal, the NCLAT bench comprising Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Member Technical Naresh Salecha examined the content and tone of the email. The tribunal observed that the email was soft, polite, and solely aimed at ensuring timely upload of a crucial order, reflecting the counsel's professional diligence and anxiety to serve his client's interests. The tribunal noted that the delayed upload of the order was an undisputed fact and the advocate's communication was justified under the circumstances.
The tribunal further emphasized that adverse remarks against an advocate's professional standing without hearing are unjustified and liable to be expunged. Consequently, the NCLAT expunged the observations recorded in paragraph Nos. 33 and 34 of the order dated June 5, 2026, and paragraph Nos. 10, 12, and 24 of the subsequent order dated July 6, 2026, passed in CP (IB) No. 380 of 2020. The bench clarified that this expunction does not confer any advantage in other contempt proceedings pending before the Adjudicating Authority in different matters.
Counsels representing both the appellant and respondents concurred that the remarks were unwarranted and supported their removal from the record. This judgment reinforces the principle that advocates must be given a fair opportunity to defend themselves before any adverse comments are made regarding their professional conduct. It also underscores the importance of professional communication in court proceedings and the obligation of tribunals to maintain decorum and fairness.
Bottom Line:
Adverse remarks against an advocate without affording opportunity of hearing and based merely on a polite e-mail seeking upload of an order pronounced in open court are uncalled for and liable to be expunged.
Statutory provision(s):
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
