Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on a petitioner for filing a writ petition challenging an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that had only been reserved and not yet pronounced.
Court Observations on Maintainability
A division bench of Justices Riyaz Chagla and Farhan Dubash held that such a petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. “The order reserved has not yet been pronounced. Accordingly, the order dated August 4, 2025, is not amenable to challenge in a writ petition,” the bench observed.
Petitioner Insisted on Arguing Merits
Despite the Court clearly indicating its view on maintainability, the petitioner insisted on arguing the matter on merits. The bench remarked that this led to unnecessary wastage of judicial time and, therefore, deemed it appropriate to impose costs.
“The learned counsel for the petitioner, though apprised of this Court’s view, insisted on proceeding with arguments on merits and thus wasted this Court’s time. Accordingly, we consider it fit to impose a cost of ₹50,000, to be paid to the Indian Red Cross Society, Mumbai,” the order stated.
Details of the Petition
The petition had been filed by Shripal Sevantilal Morakhia, who sought to quash the NCLT’s order dated August 4, 2025, by which the tribunal had reserved its decision in an interim application in an ongoing insolvency matter. Morakhia had also sought a stay on a resolution plan approved by the NCLT on May 7, 2025.
Legal Arguments by Petitioner
Arguing that the tribunal had failed to pronounce its order within the statutory time frame, Morakhia relied on Rule 150 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which mandates delivery of orders within 30 days of the final hearing. He also cited the Bombay High Court’s 2019 judgment in Kamal K. Singh v. Union of India, which emphasised timely pronouncement of judgments.
Bench Clarification
However, the bench clarified that the Kamal K. Singh ruling did not deal with the issue of whether a writ could lie against an order merely reserved and not delivered. It reiterated that interference at such a stage was unwarranted.
Also Watch:
Petitioner Already Had Proper Remedy
Advocate for one of the respondents informed the HC that Morakhia had already approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which, on August 21, 2025, noted the order’s reserved status and allowed it to be placed on record once pronounced. The HC held that the petitioner had already availed the proper appellate remedy.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
