Supreme Court Says Its Requests To Tribunals Are Directions, Pulls Up NCLAT For Not Hearing Matter Despite Earlier Request

The Supreme Court has reprimanded the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) for failing to hear a pending appeal despite its earlier request to take up the matter on July 23, 2026, directing the tribunal to explain the delay.

A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran said it was “quite disturbed” by the NCLAT's conduct. It clarified that any request made by the Supreme Court to a court or tribunal must be treated as a direction, warning that non-compliance would be viewed seriously.

“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 proceedings concern a dispute involving Mahamaya Exports Pvt Ltd and its shareholders, including Vashisht Kumar Goyal. The underlying appeals before the Supreme Court challenged orders passed by the NCLAT in June 2026, with the relief sought including permission for the company to raise capital through a rights issue.

On July 15, 2026, the Supreme Court requested the NCLAT to ensure that the matter was heard on July 23. The request was made because the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had reserved its order on a Section 7 insolvency application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

However, the NCLAT did not hear the matter. In the meantime, the NCLT pronounced its reserved order and admitted the insolvency application.

“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,” the Bench observed.

The Court further clarified that courteous language in judicial orders should not be mistaken for weakness.

“Polite expression does not diminish authority, rather it enhances, which should never be understood as weakness,” it observed.

The Court issued notice to the NCLAT, returnable on November 19, 2026, and directed the tribunal to explain why the matter had not been heard despite its earlier order.

Noting that the next hearing before the NCLAT was scheduled for November 17, 2026, the Court directed that no Committee of Creditors be constituted in the meantime.

For the Petitioner: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Sr. Meenakshi Arora, Bina Gupta, AOR, Radhika Gupta, Shiv Vinayak Gupta, Sidharth Kaushik, Anushka Rawal, Ishika, Advocates 

For the Respondents: J. Rajesh, IVO M.S. DCosta, AOR, Guruprasad Naik, Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Rishi Chauhan, Azal Aekram, Advocates