Mere Notice Seeking Reply In SFIO Investigation Application Not Appealable: NCLAT New Delhi

On 18 August, the New Delhi National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that an order merely directing parties to issue notice and file replies does not cause immediate prejudice and cannot form the subject matter of an appeal.

A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Indevar Pandey dismissed CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against an interim order of the Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The Tribunal observed:

“In that eventuality, we think that such type of an Order, which does not decide the case or a right of a party and when a forum created under law issues notice only calling upon a reply, should not have been made a subject matter of challenge in Appeal, as all grounds and defences are still available to the Appellant to put forth in defence before the learned Tribunal”

The NCLT passed the challenged order on 4 September 2025 in an application under Section 210(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, which provides for an application to the Central Government to investigate a company's affairs through the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).

Canterbury Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. filed the application seeking a reference to the Central Government under Section 210(2) to investigate the affairs of ECL Finance Limited, the original lender of the loans.

On 4 September 2025, the NCLT directed Canterbury Real Tech to serve the application and notice on the respondents and directed the respondents to file their replies within two weeks. Earlier, CFM Asset Reconstruction had filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against Canterbury Real Tech. The NCLT dismissed that petition, following which CFM Asset Reconstruction challenged the subsequent interim order before the NCLAT.

It argued that the NCLT could not have passed the order after dismissing its Section 7 petition. It also argued that the Section 210 application concerned allegations against ECL Finance Limited, which was not a party to the proceedings. Further, it submitted that it was not a party to the Section 210 application but the NCLT had nevertheless directed it to file a reply. It argued that the NCLT should not have taken cognisance of the application after dismissing its Section 7 petition, particularly when CFM Asset Reconstruction had already appealed against that dismissal.

The Tribunal observed that the NCLT had merely directed the parties to issue notice and file replies. The order neither considered the merits of the Section 210 application nor decided any right of the parties. It held that courts and tribunals cannot treat mere issuance of notice or a direction to furnish an explanation as an appealable order. It noted that CFM Asset Reconstruction could raise all its grounds and defences before the NCLT when the Section 210 application came up for consideration on merits.

The Bench also noted that CFM Asset Reconstruction had already filed its reply and therefore suffered no immediate prejudice.

Accordingly, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.

For Appellants: Senior Advocate Pooja M. Saigal with Advocates Arul S Mathur, Praba; Mehrotra and Shubankar

For Respondents: Advocates Surjendu Sankar Das, Vishwajeet Singh Shekhawat, Vishal Rishi Srivastava