Any Request Made By Supreme Court To Any Court Or Tribunal Shall Be Treated As A Direction: Apex Court Pulls Up NCLAT

The Supreme Court has clarified that any request made by it to a Court or Tribunal has to be construed as a direction and not merely a request, and that non-compliance will be looked into very seriously.

The Court expressed disquiet at the conduct of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, which did not take up a Company Appeal for hearing despite the Court’s earlier request to ensure that the matter was heard. Meanwhile, the NCLT pronounced its reserved order and admitted the Section 7 IBC application.

The Court called upon the NCLAT to explain why the matter was not heard, and directed that there shall be no constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in the meantime.

The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran observed, "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. It is one thing that the Supreme Court earnestly requests in the hope that the Court or the Tribunal would abide by the request and do the needful. However, today, we make it very clear that 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."

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate on Record IVO M.S. D Costa appeared for the Respondents

Petitions were filed against the judgment and interim orders passed in a Company Appeal by the NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi. It also sought directions to permit Respondent No. 2 Company to raise capital by way of a Rights Issue at par offered to all its existing shareholders in proportion to their shareholding, in terms of the proposal made before the Appellate Tribunal, the Appellant and Respondent No. 5 being ready and willing to contribute the entire amount, including to the extent of any shares remaining unsubscribed.

On the previous date of the hearing, the Court asked the parties to raise all the questions before the NCLAT. The Court also requested the NCLAT to see that the matter is heard for sure. "We make this request to the NCLAT because we are informed that NCLT has reserved the order insofar Section 7 IBC application is concerned", the Court had ordered.

The Court remarked that they made the request to the NCLAT considering that the NCLT had reserved its order insofar as the Section 7 IBC application is concerned. But it was informed that the NCLAT did not hear the matter till the date of hearing before the Supreme Court. It was also informed that the order that was reserved by the NCLT was pronounced and the Section 7 IBC application was admitted.

"We are quite disturbed with the manner in which the NCLAT has conducted itself in the present litigation. The request made is out of deference to their position and to ensure that the judicial office they hold is not belittled in any manner", the Court observed.

The Court relied on the judgment in Spencer and Co., Ltd. and Anr v. Vishwadarshan Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and ors. [1995] and observed, "A similar situation arose where the High Court despite this Court directing the parties to approach that court for expeditious consideration and expressing that the High Court would give due attention to the prayer, the Division Bench of the High Court recorded an order that having considered the matter, they find no reason to grant precedence...Polite expression does not diminish authority, rather it enhances, which should never be understood as weakness."

The Court asked the NCLAT to offer its explanation as to why the matter was not heard till this date, despite our specific order. 

Accordingly, the Court directed that there shall be no constitution of COC in the meantime.

Cause Title: Sona Bansal v. Vashisht Kumar Goyal & Ors. [MA Diary No(s).54224/2026]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, Advocate on Record Bina Gupta, Advocate Radhika Gupta, Advocate Shiv Vinayak Gupta, Advocate Sidharth Kaushik, Advocate Anushka Rawal, Advocate Ishika

Respondents: Advocate on Record IVO M.S. D Costa, Advocate J. Rajesh, Advocate Guruprasad Naik, Advocate Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Advocate Rishi Chauhan, Advocate Azal Aekram

Click here to read/download the Order