NCLAT Expunges Adverse Remarks Against Advocate Over Email Seeking Upload of NCLT Order
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has expunged adverse remarks made by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against an advocate.
It held that the advocate's email to the Court Master seeking the uploading of an order pronounced in open court was justified, as the order had not been uploaded for 18 days and was urgently required to implement the approved Resolution Plan.
The bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha observed:
“Naturally when the order which was pronounced in the open Court on 05.06.2026 could not be uploaded for 18 days, we do not find any error in the act of the Appellant in sending an e-mail to the Court Master of the concerned Bench, requesting only for the uplodation of the order which was admittedly pronounced in the open Court on 05.06.2026."
The appeal was filed by Mrinal Harsh Vardhan against observations contained in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the NCLT's order dated 5 June 2026, and paragraphs 10, 12 and 24 of its subsequent order dated 6 July 2026, passed in proceedings concerning Hynite Farms Pvt. Ltd.
Vardhan submitted that he had sent the email in his capacity as counsel for the Resolution Professional, solely to request that the order pronounced on 5 June be uploaded. He contended that the language of the communication was polite and reflected only his anxiety over obtaining the order, which was required for taking steps towards implementation of the approved Resolution Plan.
He also submitted that the client had been repeatedly seeking a copy of the order. Vardhan further contended that it was his duty to put forward his client's case and that, since the order had not been uploaded for about 18 days, he had considered it appropriate to remind the Court Master about the same.
He denied having any ill or scandalous intention in sending the communication. He also argued that the adverse observations could adversely affect his profession and were made without allowing him to explain his conduct.
The respondents submitted that they did not oppose the removal of the remarks.
The NCLAT then examined the email and found that its language was “quite soft.” The tribunal noted that the communication stated that the order had been pronounced on 5 June, that a certified copy had been applied for, and that the order was urgently required for implementing the approved Resolution Plan.
Further, the bench noted that the order was sought in compliance with directions passed by the Supreme Court, which required the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) to coordinate with the NOIDA authority for the implementation of the Resolution Plan.
The bench also noted that the order pronounced on 5 June had not been uploaded for 18 days, while a subsequent order dated 6 July acknowledged the earlier order and the final order was uploaded thereafter. In these circumstances, NCLAT held that there was no error in Vardhan's act of emailing the Court Master requesting the uploading of the order.
Accordingly, the bench held that the observations made by the NCLT were “totally uncalled for”. The NCLAT directed that the remarks contained in the specified paragraphs of the June 5 and July 6 orders be expunged. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
However, NCLAT clarified that no benefit of its order could be taken by any other party in relation to contempt proceedings pending before the NCLT in another matter.
For Appellants: Advocates Chitranshul Sinha, Aaditya Mishra, Srishti Aggarwal & Aayushi Kiran
For Respondent: Advocate Sajeev Deora for R1; Advocates Rishi Singhal & Tannu Rana for R2