Supreme Court: requests to courts or tribunals must be treated as directions

The case concerns a dispute where the Supreme Court observed that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) failed to hear a matter on a specific date as requested by the Court, leading to a directive that such requests must be treated as binding orders.

Who it concerns: Petitioner: Sona Bansal; Respondents: Vashisht Kumar Goyal & Ors.; Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

What the court decided

• The Court held that any request made by the Supreme Court to a Court or Tribunal must be treated as a direction, and non-compliance will be looked into seriously.
• The Court expressed disturbance regarding the NCLAT's failure to hear the matter on 23.07.2026 as requested.
• Notice was issued to the NCLAT, returnable on 19.11.2026, requiring an explanation for why the matter was not heard despite the previous order.
• Dasti service was permitted in addition to other service methods.
• A stay was imposed on the constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in the meantime.

Also in the document

• The Court noted that the NCLT had admitted a Section 7 IBC application while the NCLAT had not yet heard the main matter.
• The next date fixed by the NCLAT is stated to be 17.11.2026.
• The Court clarified that its previous 'earnest request' to the NCLAT was intended to ensure the matter was heard on 23.07.2026.