Tribunal issuing sua sponte judicial direction and access to electronic records found to breach audi alteram partem; order quashed

Tribunal issued a sua sponte judicial direction permitting appointment of a neutral expert and access to personal electronic records without affording the affected party an opportunity to be heard; this was held to violate the principle of audi alteram partem and show impermissible identification with a party, so the impugned order was quashed. Consequentially the appeal was allowed, but the respondent may file a fresh application for the same relief; that application must be adjudicated on merits after giving the appellant a hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after arguments and exchange of written submissions are concluded and in absence of any application by the parties, the Tribunal could on its own appoint an IT expert and direct access to the petitioner's personal mails and printouts without affording the affected party an opportunity to be heard.

Analysis: The matter arises under the proceedings instituted under Section 241 and Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, where the interlocutory direction impugned was made by the Tribunal after conclusion of arguments and written synopses. Principles of natural justice and the audi alteram partem rule require that directions which affect the rights or privacy of a party be preceded by appropriate proceedings and an opportunity to oppose or be heard. The appointment of an expert and directions for access to a party's personal records constitute intrusive, case-affecting measures which ordinarily follow a specific application and consideration of objections rather than being initiated unilaterally by the Tribunal. Procedural fairness demands that the affected party be given notice and a chance to contest such measures; otherwise the Tribunal risks appearing aligned with one party and rendering a decision without adversarial testing of the proposal.

Conclusion: The impugned direction for appointment of an IT expert and for access to the petitioner's personal mails without prior opportunity to be heard is unsustainable and is quashed. The result is in favour of the Appellant. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to permit the respondent to file an appropriate application if so advised, and for the Tribunal to decide the same on merits after offering the affected party an opportunity of hearing within a reasonable time period.

---