SC pulls up NCLAT for not hearing appeal despite earlier request

The Supreme Court said its requests to tribunals must be treated as directions and sought an explanation from NCLAT for not hearing an appeal on July 23 despite its earlier order

The Supreme Court has sought an explanation from the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) for failing to hear an appeal on July 23, 2026, as previously requested by the top court.

 

A Bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said it was “quite disturbed” by the tribunal’s conduct and emphasised that any request from the Supreme Court to another court or tribunal must be treated as a direction. It warned that failure to comply with such directions would be viewed seriously.

 

“We are quite disturbed with the manner in which the NCLAT has conducted itself in the present litigation. The request made is out of deference to their position and to ensure that the judicial office they hold is not belittled in any manner,” the Bench observed.

 

 

The dispute concerns Mahamaya Exports Private Limited and its shareholders, including Vashisht Kumar Goyal. The appeals before the Supreme Court challenge orders passed by the NCLAT in June 2026. The relief sought includes permission for the company to raise capital through a rights issue.

 

On July 15, 2026, the Supreme Court had asked the NCLAT to hear the matter on July 23. The request came after the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) reserved its order on an application seeking initiation of insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The section allows a financial creditor to start the insolvency process against a defaulting entity.

 

The NCLAT did not take up the appeal on the scheduled date. In the meantime, the NCLT pronounced its reserved order and admitted the insolvency application.

 

The Supreme Court said its requests to courts and tribunals should not be treated as mere suggestions.

 

“When the Supreme Court makes a request to any Court or Tribunal, it has to be construed as a direction and not just a request,” the Bench said, adding that non-compliance would be taken seriously.

 

The court also observed that politeness in judicial language should not be mistaken for a lack of authority.

 

“Polite expression does not diminish authority, rather it enhances, which should never be understood as weakness,” it said.

 

The Supreme Court issued notice to the NCLAT, returnable on November 19, 2026, and directed it to explain why the appeal was not heard despite the earlier request.

 

Since the next hearing before the NCLAT was scheduled for November 17, 2026, the Supreme Court also directed that no Committee of Creditors be constituted in the meantime.