High Court emphasizes consistent procedures for NCLT hearings, mandates SOP for virtual hearings, and consent for physical hearings.

The High Court set aside the previous rejection of the writ application, emphasizing the need for a consistent and reasonable procedure for National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) hearings. The Court directed NCLT, Ahmedabad to develop a standard operating procedure for virtual hearings in consultation with the Bar and mandated that physical hearings require consent from all parties. The judgment aimed to address issues of inconsistency, technical difficulties, and the High Court's supervisory role, urging cooperation for efficient justice administration during the pandemic.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Mode of hearing (physical vs. virtual) during COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Inconsistency in the mode of hearing by NCLT, Ahmedabad.
3. Difficulties faced by lawyers in virtual hearings.
4. High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
5. Representation by the Ahmedabad National Company Law Tribunal Practitioners Association.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Mode of Hearing (Physical vs. Virtual) During COVID-19 Pandemic:
The appellant contended that the current platform for virtual hearings is unstable and full of technical snags, making it unfeasible for complex litigation. They argued that physical hearings would be more convenient but acknowledged that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is not advisable to adopt physical hearings. The appellant sought directions for the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad to conduct proceedings by physical hearing only when permitted by the relevant authorities.

2. Inconsistency in the Mode of Hearing by NCLT, Ahmedabad:
The appellant highlighted that Court No.2 of the NCLT consistently conducted virtual hearings, whereas Court No.1 adopted an inconsistent practice, sometimes conducting physical hearings without the consent of all parties. This inconsistency led to difficulties for lawyers who were prepared for virtual hearings but found the proceedings conducted physically.

3. Difficulties Faced by Lawyers in Virtual Hearings:
The appellant and other respondents pointed out several issues with the virtual hearing platform, including technical glitches, communication barriers, and the inability to accommodate all participants. They emphasized that part physical and part virtual hearings create unfairness and violate principles of natural justice. The representation by the President of the Ahmedabad National Company Law Tribunal Practitioners Association detailed these difficulties and requested a change in the virtual hearing platform and other procedural adjustments.

4. High Court's Jurisdiction Under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution:
The appellant argued that the High Court has the jurisdiction to interfere with the practice and procedure followed by the Tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution, which provides for the High Court's superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction. They cited case law to support the view that the High Court's superintendence extends to both administrative and judicial functions of the tribunals.

5. Representation by the Ahmedabad National Company Law Tribunal Practitioners Association:
The representation dated 29th July 2020 by the President of the Association highlighted various issues faced by practitioners due to the current virtual hearing platform and requested the Tribunal to switch to a more stable platform. It also suggested that physical hearings should only be conducted with the consent of all parties and emphasized the need for a consistent and reasonable procedure for hearings.

Judgment Analysis:
The High Court observed that the learned Single Judge erred in outright rejecting the writ application and imposing costs. The Court noted that there is a significant problem faced by many lawyers regarding the mode and manner of the NCLT's functioning. The Court emphasized the need for a consistent and reasonable procedure to avoid difficulties for practitioners.

The Court directed the NCLT, Ahmedabad to consider the representation made by the Association and to frame a standard operating procedure (SOP) for virtual hearings in consultation with the Bar. It also directed that any physical hearing should only be conducted with the consent of all parties involved. The Court highlighted the importance of cooperation from all parties to ensure smooth and expeditious disposal of proceedings.

The judgment set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the Special Civil Application to the extent of issuing the above directions. The Court expressed hope that the NCLT would resolve the issues and avoid further litigation on this matter.

Conclusion:
The High Court's judgment addressed the issues of inconsistent hearing modes, difficulties with virtual hearings, and the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction. It provided clear directions to the NCLT, Ahmedabad to streamline virtual hearings and ensure consistency and fairness in the proceedings. The judgment emphasized cooperation from all parties to facilitate effective administration of justice during the pandemic.

---