NCLT Ahmedabad Issues Contempt Notices Against Sai Infinium Over Unwarranted Allegations In CIRP Recall Plea

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has directed issuance of contempt notices to Sai Infinium Limited and its representatives after holding that a recall plea contained “contemptuous” allegations against the Bench. The tribunal also rejected the recall plea..  

A coram of Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Dr. Velamur G. Venkata Chalapathy made the observation while dismissing an application filed by the corporate debtor seeking recall of an ex parte order dated November 12, 2025.

The insolvency proceedings were initiated by operational creditor Anand Multitrade under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The tribunal said the application went beyond legal grounds and imputed motives to the Adjudicating Authority. “Without giving any good and satisfactory reason, the applicant prayed for setting aside the ex-parte order while simultaneously making allegations against the Tribunal that injustice was done and that an arbitrary order was passed,” the tribunal observed.

The ex parte order was passed on November 12, 2025, after the corporate debtor failed to appear despite service of notice in September 2025. The Tribunal noted that there was no appearance on earlier hearing dates as well.

Although a professional company secretary appeared virtually on the date the ex parte order was passed, the tribunal recorded that he was unable to place any authority on record.

In the recall application, the corporate debtor alleged that the Judicial Member had “precipitously and without justification interrupted” its representative during the virtual hearing and muted him. The conduct was described as “per incuriam and antithetical to the foundational maxim audi alteram partem.”

The tribunal rejected the allegation. It held that the representative “was not at all authorized to appear on behalf of the original respondent on the date when the ex-parte order was passed,” noting that no authorisation had been filed either electronically or physically.

The corporate debtor also objected to the ex parte order being passed on the third date of hearing.

Rejecting the submission, the tribunal clarified, “There is no procedure that an ex-parte order cannot be passed on the third date of hearing, and an ex-parte order can even be passed on the first date of appearance.”

Taking serious exception to the pleadings, the tribunal noted that “the language mentioned by the applicant in the application itself is contemptuous.”

The bench concluded, “There is no question of any intention for non-appearance by the applicant. The applicant is trying to take advantage of his own wrong. No satisfactory and justified reason is given for non-appearance on the date fixed. Therefore, the ex-parte order cannot be set aside.”

For Applicant: PCS Vinit Nagar

For Respondent: Advocate Monaal Davawala