TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Supreme Court practices and procedures -Request to pass speaking orders settling law, and  avoid summary / non speaking orders of honourable Supreme Court on any issue to settle law. Particularly on important issues related to provisions of Companies Act, Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Evidence Act and general laws. Recent orders deserve reconsideration and disposal by  speaking order of Supreme Court.
Cases under study and reference:
Deloitte Haskins And Sells LLP Versus Union Of India & Others -Â 2025 (5) TMI 2186 - SC Order
FOLLOWED IN
Udayan Sen Versus Union Of India & Ors. -Â 2025 (9) TMI 685 - SC Order
And
Kalpesh Mehta Versus Union Of India & Ors. -Â 2025 (9) TMI 684 - SC Order
The above three appeals were against one and common judgment  of NCALT reported as
And the original case was also decided by one and common order of NCLT Mumbai Bench vide order dt. 22.07.2024 in CA No.65 of 2024, CA No.117 of 2024 and CA No.118 of 2024 respectively. By the impugned order, CA No.65 of 2024 filed by Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP, CA No. 117 of 2024 filed by Kalpesh Mehta and CA No.118 of 2024 filed by Udayan Sen were rejected.
Judgments of NCLT are not yet reported.
We find that appeal before the Supreme Court were filed by three parties in year 2025, though at different times. The appeal was filed against one and the same  order of NCALT, therefore, to expedite justice and also to follow standard court practices, they could be heard and decided simultaneously. However, we find three different orders passed on three different dates as noted above.
HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA was common in all three cases and other honourable three judges were different in three cases.
This has definitely caused wastage of lot of time and human resources and valuable time of the Supreme Court.
Lead case:
As per date wise sequence of judgments of honorable Supreme Court we find that the case of Deloitte Haskins And Sells LLP Versus Union Of India & Others is lead case as it was decided first. The judgment / order as reported reads as follows:
“ORDER PER
1. We have heard learned senior counsel, Mr. Kapil Sibal and learned senior counsel, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul appearing for the appellant and learned ASG, Mr. S.D. Sanjay appearing for the respondents on caveat at length.
2. We do not find any merit in this Appeal.
3. Hence, the Civil Appeal is dismissed.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Unquote
Although in the order it is stated that “We have heard learned senior counsel……
However, any argument from any side is not mentioned. Any reason is not given as to why their lordships did not find any merit in the Appeal.
Although this is order of the Supreme Court, and it can be relied on as law laid down by it.
This was not a case like dispute on facts found by Tribunal. This involves multifarious legal aspects.
However, author find that this judgment / order is non at all speaking and can render no assistance in case the matter require reconsideration in any proceeding or is relied on as precedence. An order or judgment of the Supreme Court is of an institution and is not personal opinion of their lordships. With due respect, to their lordships, author feels that the judgment or order need reconsideration and disposal by way of a thoroughly speaking order.
Such order should preferably be not followed, as precedence while deciding other matters.
Other aspects:
The three cases originally were decided by NCLT by single order, appeal against it was also decided by one and single order of NCALT.
The issue under consideration were related to provisions under the Companies Act as well as The Criminal Procedure Code and investigation by SFIO and their reports.
Therefore, this was not a case simply on provisions of the Companies Act but it also related to other provisions.
Judgment / order followed :
As noted earlier this judgment / order has been followed in two other judgments of the Supreme Court by two different benches on two different days. In those appeals also any speaking order has not been passedas discussed below:
And in case of Kalpesh Mehta order is as follows:
ORDER PER
1. Delay in refiling is condoned.
2. Following the order dated 19.05.2025 passed in C.A. No. 6645/2025 [Deloitte haskins and Sells LLP vs. Union of India and Others], we dismiss this Civil Appeal.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
In case of Udayan Sen order is as follows:
ORDER PER
1. Following the order dated 08.08.2025 passed in Civil Appeal Diary No. 20766/2025 (Kalpesh Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors.) and order dated 19.05.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6645/2025 (Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP), this Civil Appeal is also dismissed.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Un quote:
Both orders are also not at all speaking.  In these  two cases even it is not stated that the case was heard.Â
Therefore, any of orders of the Supreme Court against the judgment of NCALT are not speaking at all  and may  not be considered as precedence and legal binding.
However, I the case decided first (Delloittes case)  it is stated that we have heard counsels…, therefore, a possible view is that the judgment of Supreme Court is a binding precedence. This view also get fortified because in two other judgments, this has been followed and applied by different benches of the Supreme Court.
Therefore, the non-speaking order provides ground for more litigation.
If such practices continue at level of the Supreme Court, there will be more litigation and lack of finality.
In all three orders it is mentioned  ORDER PER
Author understand that it should be either by Bench or in case it is decided by one of their lordships than the other judges express their consent by writing and signing I agree. That is good practice. However, in absence of any name it is reasonable to assume that the judgment has been passed by the Bench.
Therefore, their lordships are humbly requested to streamline procedures at the Supreme Court about case history, similar cases, clubbing  and  hearing of similar cases at one time and passing of speaking order and to avoid practice of keeping matters and issues as UNSETTLED, AND OPEN.
From website of The Supreme Court – case of Deloittee
Diary No. - 20822/2025
DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS LLP vs. UNION OF INDIA
| Â | |
Diary Number | 20822/2025Â Filed on 19-04-2025 10:55 AM [Â SECTION:Â XVII-B] DISPOSED |
Case Number | C.A. No. 006645 - / 2025 Registered on 13-05-2025 |
CNR Number | SCIN010208222025 |
Present/Last Listed On | 19-05-2025 [HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNAand HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA] |
Status/Stage | DISPOSED (Motion Hearing [FRESH (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES]) Dismissed-Ord dt:19-05-2025 (Disposal Date: 19-05-2025, Month: 5, Year: 2025) JUDGES: HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA, HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA |
Disp.Type | Dismissed |
Category | 1001-Company Law, Sick Industries including Disinvestment : Company Law, Sick Industries including Disinvestment |
Petitioner(s) | 1 DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS LLP |
Respondent(s) | 1 UNION OF INDIA |
Petitioner Advocate(s) | E. C. AGRAWALA |
Respondent Advocate(s) | SUDARSHAN LAMBA[caveat] |
From above we find that the following persons are also in list of respondents
4 UDAYAN SEN
5 KALPESH J MEHTA
Â
Although in reported judgment of the NCALT Â and Supreme Court they were appellant and they have also filed appeals before the Supreme Court.
Therefore, the information provided in the portal of Supreme Court giving their names as respondents also creates confusions.