2026 (1) TMI 1167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ugned order dated 28.11.2025 passed by Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh in CA No.48/2022, 121/2022, 158/2023, 115/2025, 117/2025, 205/2025, 206/2025 in CP No.8/Chd/Hry/2022. The impugned order is to the following effect:- "Mr Karan Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to advance arguments, which he began to do. During the course of which, he was repeatedly requested to brief and concise in his arguments. However, he continues to insist on reading the entire pleadings. He has already been granted more than one hour to address the arguments, yet he is still seeking substantially more time, which cannot be allowed. He is accordingly directed to file a short note within three days, along with supporting jud....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e stating inter alia once a matter is reserved for orders, no appeal shall lie to seek further hearings in the matter. 4. Heard. 5. If one peruse the order dated 28th November, 2025 it shows various applications were listed on the said date viz CAs 205/2025, 206/2025, 115/2025 and the notices were issued on these applications but as alleged such applications were not taken up and the Company Petition was heard and reserved for orders. The grievance is the impugned order does not mention as to what shall be the fate of such applications, listed on that day as only the arguments on the Company Petition No.8/2022 were heard. As alleged some of such applications were to bring on record subsequent facts viz issuance of the rights issue whi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to prepare his arguments during lunch time and to reassemble at 2.30 PM. The arguments were then heard at 2.30 PM and thereafter at 2.45 PM, the Ld. NCLT instructed the Ld.counsel to finish his arguments by 3 PM and thereafter, the impugned order was passed. Heard. 9. We have perused the impugned order. It 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....