2026 (1) TMI 1167 - AT - Companies Law

Violation of principles of natural justice in hearing regulated oral time and requirement to file written note upheld; appeal disposed

The text addresses alleged violation of principles of natural justice where oral arguments were time-limited and the party was directed to file a short ... Violation of principles of natural justice - denial of opportunity of being heard - the impugned order restricted oral arguments and directed filing of short written notes - HELD THAT:- The impugned order records more than one hour was given to the learned counsel for the appellant to represent his case and during this period he was repeatedly requested to be brief and concise in his arguments, but he insisted on reading the entire pleading which the Ld. NCLT refused to allow and directed him to file a short note within three days alongwith supporting judgements covering his point of argument which shall be considered while deciding the matter. These facts do not show no hearing was ever given to the appellant for representing his case. The law only requires a reasonable and fair opportunity to be given to the parties to represent their cases and admittedly the Ld. NCLT has power to regulate its own procedure. Admittedly in the present case, the appellant was given an oral hearing for an hour and further was requested to file his notes of submissions, hence it cannot be said fair opportunity to represent was not given, thus the NCLAT is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. However, the Ld. NCLT is requested to consider and decide the pending applications, if any, alongwith the main Company Petition, since it had heard both the parties on such applications too on 31.10.2025. The appeal stands disposed of. Issues: Whether the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the NCLT, which limited oral arguments and directed filing of short written notes, denied the appellants a fair hearing and amounted to a violation of principles of natural justice warranting interference by the Appellate Tribunal.Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal examined the impugned order, the course of events on 28.11.2025 and earlier proceedings including hearings on 31.10.2025; considered the extent of oral hearing actually afforded to the appellant; and applied the governing principle that procedural rules are subject to the requirement of natural justice but do not guarantee unlimited oral advocacy. The Tribunal relied on authority establishing that the right to be heard requires a fair and reasonable opportunity which may be satisfied by limited oral argument supplemented by written submissions where oral presentation is not essential. It noted the NCLT's power to regulate its procedure, the fact that the appellant had been heard orally for about an hour, and that the NCLT had directed filing of short notes to be considered before reserving orders.Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal concluded that there was no denial of a fair hearing or breach of natural justice in the impugned order and that interference was not warranted. The appeal is therefore disposed of without upsetting the impugned order; pending applications referred to were directed to be considered by the NCLT and specific listed pending applications were disposed of.Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal may, consistent with natural justice, regulate oral advocacy including limiting oral argument and directing written notes where a reasonable and fair opportunity to be heard has been given; such procedural regulation does not amount to denial of hearing if parties receive a fair opportunity and the tribunal applies an instructed, impartial mind to the submissions.