No Impropriety Found”: NCLT President Clears Chennai Bench After NCLAT Terms Order ‘Rather Dubious

No Impropriety Found”: NCLT President Clears Chennai Bench After NCLAT Terms Order ‘Rather Dubious

Introduction

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) President, Chief Justice (Retd.) Ramalingam Sudhakar, has submitted an enquiry report to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), rejecting allegations of impropriety in an order passed by the Chennai Bench. The enquiry was initiated after the appellate tribunal described a March 15, 2022 order as “rather dubious” in proceedings relating to the insolvency of Regen Powertech Private Limited.

Factual Background

The enquiry arose from an appeal filed by Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited in insolvency proceedings concerning Regen Powertech Private Limited. While dismissing the appeal as infructuous on March 6, 2025, the NCLAT made observations suggesting that the manner in which the Chennai Bench passed its March 15, 2022 order appeared questionable and raised concerns about the functioning of the tribunal. The appellate tribunal requested the NCLT President to examine the issue and conduct an enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the listing and passing of the order.

Procedural Background

Pursuant to the NCLAT’s direction, Justice Sudhakar conducted an enquiry and submitted his report dated February 6, 2026. The report examined registry records, documentary material, cause lists, court diary entries, e-portal data and the factual report of the concerned bench. The enquiry also considered pleadings filed by the appellant before the appellate tribunal.

Issues

1. Whether the March 15, 2022 order of the Chennai Bench was passed in a manner suggestive of impropriety.

2. Whether discrepancies in listing and e-portal entries indicated any departure from judicial discipline.

3. administrative lapses affected the integrity of the adjudicatory process.

Contentions of the Parties

Before the NCLAT, the appellant had contended that the matter was inadvertently not listed on February 15, 2022. It was stated that counsel mentioned the issue before the Bench and that the registry was directed to list the matter on March 15, 2022.

The appellate tribunal, while dismissing the appeal as infructuous, observed that the circumstances appeared “rather dubious” and called for an enquiry.

Reasoning and Analysis

In his report, Justice Sudhakar noted that the appellant’s own memorandum before the NCLAT confirmed that listing on March 15, 2022 occurred pursuant to a judicial direction following mention by the appellant’s counsel. He observed that the appellant had not fully disclosed this aspect before the appellate tribunal.

The report concluded that no material had emerged suggesting impropriety, bias or departure from judicial discipline. Minor discrepancies were attributed to administrative issues, including staffing limitations in the post-COVID period, and were not reflective of any judicial irregularity.

The enquiry further clarified that discrepancies in the e-portal display of the next hearing date resulted from data-entry errors and did not emanate from any judicial direction.

Justice Sudhakar emphatically stated that the order was not dubious and that it was the appellant who failed to inform the appellate tribunal about the mention and subsequent listing direction.

The report also highlighted institutional performance metrics, noting significant disposal rates, approval of 1501 resolution plans, and improved operational efficiency, including reduction in login delays and positive feedback regarding virtual court functioning.

Decision

The NCLT President’s enquiry report concluded that there was no impropriety in the Chennai Bench’s March 15, 2022 order. The discrepancies identified were administrative in nature and did not impinge upon the integrity or fairness of the tribunal’s adjudicatory functioning.