E-Paper
SC expunges remarks against NCLAT members by larger bench
Hurt by the personal remarks made against them by the five-member bench on December 22, the three members – Justice (Retd) Jarat Kumar Jain, Balvinder Singh and Vijai Pratap Singh – had approached the top court
The Supreme Court on Friday expunged disparaging remarks passed against three sitting members of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in an order passed by a bench of five members of the same Tribunal last year.
Hurt by the personal remarks made against them by the five-member bench on December 22, the three members – Justice (Retd) Jarat Kumar Jain, Balvinder Singh and Vijai Pratap Singh – had approached the top court. A reference made by a three-member bench had led to the passing of the said order where the five-member bench of NCLAT held the reference to be not maintainable, a “misadventure” which was against judicial discipline.
On going through the petition, the apex court agreed that the remarks required to be expunged. The bench of Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai said, “We are with you. Shall we expunge the remarks straightaway?” Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Vinay Garg informed the court that the remarks offending his clients were reproduced in the petition.
Also Read | No evidence but can’t rule out conspiracy against Gogoi: SC
The five-member NCLAT bench had remarked, “We hope and trust the members of the Referral Bench would exhibit more serious attitude towards adherence of the binding judicial precedents and not venture to cross the red line….such misadventure weakens the authority of law, dignity of institution as also shakes people’s faith in rule of law.” There were other portions too pointed out in the petition containing personal remarks against the three members.
The bench said, “We are of the view that the observations made against the members of the tribunal in the special leave petition (SLP) be expunged.”
What invited these remarks against the petitioners was a decision given by them sitting in a three-member combination on September 25, 2020. In that order, they noticed an earlier decision by a five-member bench of NCLAT that was contrary to decisions rendered by the Supreme Court. The issue related to whether entry in the company’s statutory balance sheet would amount to acknowledgement of debt by the company. The Supreme Court judgments held in the affirmative while a five-member NCLAT bench ruled the opposite. Since a five-member NCLAT ruling binds a three-member bench, the petitioners chose to refer the question to the five-member bench.
The petition by the three members in Supreme Court filed through advocate Amit Sharma, said, “The larger bench has crossed the limits of its jurisdiction and has made unsavoury and most disparaging comments which tend to be personal in nature against the Referral Bench.”
The three members did not challenge the setting aside of their reference order but limited their challenge to the personal remarks made against them. They approached the court under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code which allows any NCLAT order to be appealed before the top court.
