Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal of Appeals in Multiple Cases Related to NCLAT Orders

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 14, 2022
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.

What happens to appeals when the final order in a case has already been passed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question by allowing the withdrawal of several civil appeals. These appeals were initially filed against interlocutory orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The core issue revolved around the procedural aspect of whether appeals against interim orders become redundant once the final order in the matter is issued by the NCLAT. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Sudhanshu Dhulia, addressed this issue in a series of related cases.

Case Background

The cases before the Supreme Court were a series of civil appeals originating from orders passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The appeals were filed by various entities, including L&T Infrastructure Finance Company Limited, Hindustan Zinc Limited Employees Contributory Provident Fund Trust, and HDFC Mutual Fund. The appeals were initially filed against interlocutory orders of the NCLAT. However, during the pendency of these appeals before the Supreme Court, the NCLAT passed final orders in the respective matters. Consequently, the appellants sought to withdraw their appeals from the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appeals before the Supreme Court were initially filed against interlocutory orders passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). These interim orders were related to Company Appeal (AT) Nos. 346 of 2018 and 347 of 2018. During the pendency of these appeals, the NCLAT issued final orders on 12.03.2021 and 12.03.2020. Consequently, the appellants, recognizing that the final orders had been passed, sought permission from the Supreme Court to withdraw their respective appeals. The Supreme Court, upon considering the submissions, allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

Legal Framework

There was no specific legal framework discussed in the order. The order primarily dealt with the procedural aspect of withdrawing appeals when the final order in the matter had already been passed by the appellate tribunal.

Arguments

The primary argument presented by the appellants, through their Senior Advocate, Mr. Gopal Jain, was that since the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had passed the final orders in the respective matters, the appeals against the interlocutory orders had become infructuous. Therefore, they sought the liberty to withdraw the appeals. There were no counter-arguments presented as the respondents did not object to the withdrawal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues in these cases. The primary matter before the court was the request for withdrawal of the appeals in light of the final orders passed by the NCLAT. The court dealt with the request for withdrawal of appeals, as the final orders had been passed by the NCLAT.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

No specific authorities, such as case laws or legal provisions, were cited or discussed in the judgment. The decision was based on the procedural aspect of allowing the withdrawal of appeals when the final orders had been passed by the appellate tribunal.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The primary factor that weighed in the mind of the Court was the fact that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had already passed the final orders in the respective matters. This rendered the appeals against the interlocutory orders infructuous. The court’s decision was based on the procedural aspect of allowing the withdrawal of appeals when the main issue had already been addressed by the final orders of the appellate tribunal.

The court’s decision was straightforward, focusing on the procedural aspect and the fact that the final orders had been passed by NCLAT, making the appeals against interlocutory orders redundant.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Appeals against interlocutory orders become infructuous once the final order is passed by the appellate tribunal.
• ✓ Litigants can withdraw appeals against interim orders if the main matter has been decided.
• ✓ The Supreme Court prioritizes judicial efficiency by allowing withdrawal of redundant appeals.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that any interim orders passed by the Court in these matters would stand vacated upon the withdrawal of the appeals.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that appeals against interlocutory orders become infructuous once the final order is passed by the appellate tribunal. This reinforces the principle that the final order of the appellate tribunal is the operative decision, and any interim orders or appeals against such orders become redundant once the final order is passed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of multiple civil appeals after noting that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had passed the final orders in the respective matters. This decision highlights the procedural aspect of the judicial system, emphasizing that appeals against interlocutory orders become infructuous once the final order has been passed by the appellate tribunal. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures judicial efficiency by preventing the continuation of redundant appeals.