Natural justice and fair hearing require notice before reserved orders are changed by new material from non-parties.

Orders passed after a matter had been reserved for judgment, and on the basis of a mention by counsel for non-parties without notice to the affected appellants, were treated as procedurally unsustainable. The Tribunal's analysis emphasised that once hearings had concluded, any new material brought to its notice had to be shared with the parties and addressed through a fair opportunity to respond. Because the appellants were not heard before the impugned orders were made, the requirements of natural justice and audi alteram partem were not satisfied. The orders were therefore liable to be quashed and the matters remitted for fresh consideration after hearing all parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned orders, passed after the matter had been reserved for orders and on the basis of a mention made by a non-party without notice to the appellants, were vitiated for breach of natural justice and procedural impropriety.

Analysis: The Tribunal had reserved the matters after hearing concluded. The impugned orders were then passed on the basis of a mention by counsel for financial institutions who were not parties to the company petitions, and the appellants were not given prior notice or an opportunity to address the effect of that mention. A final order passed in such circumstances, without hearing the affected parties on the new material brought to the Tribunal's notice, could not be sustained consistently with the requirement of fair hearing and audi alteram partem.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were liable to be quashed and the matters were required to be remitted for fresh consideration after hearing all parties.

---