High Court Upholds NCLT/NCLAT Orders on Jurisdiction & Hearing Modes, Rejects Mandamus

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging NCLT and NCLAT orders, asserting its jurisdiction. It emphasized the authority's discretion in determining hearing modes during the pandemic, rejecting mandamus for specific modes. The Court highlighted parties should address hearing constraints directly to the adjudicating authority and appellate bodies. The petition challenging NCLAT's expeditious disposal order was rejected, indicating Supreme Court jurisdiction for such challenges. The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000, emphasizing the authority's role in deciding hearing modes based on resources and technology, underscoring challenges to appellate orders through statutory appeals.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition challenging orders of NCLT and NCLAT.
2. Mode of conducting hearings by the adjudicating authority during the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. Authority's discretion in determining the mode of hearing.
4. Applicability of mandamus in directing the mode of hearing.
5. Challenge to the order of NCLAT for expeditious disposal of proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the High Court
The petitioner challenged orders of NCLT and NCLAT, arguing that the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The Senior Advocate cited various legal precedents to support the maintainability of the petition before the High Court.

Issue 2: Mode of Hearings during COVID-19
The petitioner sought physical hearings before NCLT at Ahmedabad due to issues faced with virtual hearings. However, the Court noted that the readiness for virtual hearings contradicted the prayer for physical hearings, which could delay the proceedings. The Court emphasized the importance of contemporaneous records in determining the veracity of events.

Issue 3: Authority's Discretion in Determining Hearing Mode
The Court highlighted that the authority conducting the hearing should determine the mode, subject to instructions from appellate authorities or the government. It clarified that the High Court cannot issue mandamus without a specific prayer to the adjudicating authority.

Issue 4: Mandamus in Directing Hearing Mode
The Court emphasized that parties should address any constraints regarding virtual or physical hearings directly to the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority. It stated that the High Court cannot dictate the manner in which the authority conducts proceedings.

Issue 5: Challenge to NCLAT's Order for Expeditious Disposal
The Court rejected the petition as an attempt to avoid participating in expedited proceedings directed by NCLAT. It clarified that challenging NCLAT's order fell under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not the High Court.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition with a cost of Rs. 10,000, emphasizing that the authority conducting the proceedings should decide the mode of hearing based on resources and technology availability. The Court highlighted that fundamental rights do not include choosing a specific hearing medium and that challenges to orders of appellate tribunals should be addressed through statutory appeals.

---