JUDGMENT : ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking an appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 09.02.2026 passed by the respondent No.3 – National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad [“NCLT” for short] in Company Petition No.417 of 2026 and IA No.45 of 2026. 2. Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Company petition No. 417 of 2026 and IA No.45 of 2026 came to be finally heard by the NCLT on 06.02.2026 and reserved for pronouncement of judgment. It is submitted that the written submissions also came to be filed by the respondent No.1. It is further submitted that when the daily cause list for 09.02.2026 came to be uploaded on the NCLT website on 07.02.2026, it did not reflect the listing of 417 of 2026 and IA No.45 of 2026 for pronouncement of the judgment. He submits that suddenly on 09.02.2026 in the morning, a separate list for pronouncement of the judgment came to be uploaded and the impugned judgment came to be pronounced without any proper intimation to the petitioners herein. He submits that such an action on the part of the NCLT has caused grave prejudice to the petitioners in as much as the CIRP proceedings have been started against the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel submits that such an action by the respondent No.3 NCLT is also in breach of Rule 89 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 [“Rules, 2016” for short]. Learned Senior Counsel therefore, submits that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and the respondent No.3 NCLT be directed to comply with the provisions of Rule 89 of the Rules, 2016 before such an order is pronounced so that the petitioners have an opportunity of seeking stay of the order so pronounced so as to approach the higher forum. 2.1 In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following judgments:- [a] Kamal K. Singh v. Union of India, Through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors. - 2019 SCC ONLine Bom 5609; [b] Order dated 04.01.2022 in Special Civil Application No.15485 of 2021; and [c] Order dated 26.10.2021 in Special Civil Application No.5042 of 2021. 3. Per contra, Mr. - 2019 SCC ONLine Bom 5609; [b] Order dated 04.01.2022 in Special Civil Application No.15485 of 2021; and [c] Order dated 26.10.2021 in Special Civil Application No.5042 of 2021. 3. Per contra, Mr. Tarak Damani, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that in the present case, the petitioners were fully aware of the pronouncement of the judgment by the respondent No.3 NCLT on 09.02.2026. He submits that the parties to the Company Petition had received email in respect of the uploading of Supplementary Board for the pronouncement of orders in 5 cases including the 417 of 2026 and IA No.45 of 2026. He submits that as a standard procedure, the email in respect of such cause list was also received by the parties to the petition. He submits that after the pronouncement of the order, the parties have also received a copy of the impugned order by email. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter by email dated 10.02.2026, it was intimated by the Interim Resolution Profesional [“IRP” for short] to the Statutory Auditor intimating the CIRP process and demand of documents from the respondent No.1 company. He submits that thereafter the IRP has also initiated further steps and various parties have been intimated. Accordingly, public announcement has also been made in the newspaper publications and the concerned parties have also been informed of the impugned order by the IRP. He submits that since the petitioners were in knowledge of the pronouncement of the judgment on the same day i.e. 09.02.2026, the petitioners could have taken appropriate steps for seeking any interim relief to approach the higher forum. He submits that the factual background cannot be disputed by the petitioners. He, therefore, submits that this petition may not be entertained. 3.1 In support of his contentions, he has relied upon following judgments:- [a] Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. v/s Faroos Ali Khan and Others 2025 SCC Online SC 23; [b] Union of India and Others v/s Coastal Container Transporters Association and others (2019) 20 SCC 446 ; [c] Shaji Purushothaman v/s Union of India & Ors. WP.No. 1926 of 2020; [d] Shaji Purushothaman v/s Union of India SLP (C) No.7209 of 2020; [e] Rajratan Babulal Agarwal v/s Solartex India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 546 of 2020; [f] Rajratan Babulal Agarwal v/s Solartex India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. WP.No. 1926 of 2020; [d] Shaji Purushothaman v/s Union of India SLP (C) No.7209 of 2020; [e] Rajratan Babulal Agarwal v/s Solartex India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 546 of 2020; [f] Rajratan Babulal Agarwal v/s Solartex India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2199 of 2021; and [g] Dineshbhai Khimjibhai Patel v/s Dhara Cements (India) Pvt Ltd. 4. Mr. Ankit Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 NCLT has supported the arguments of Mr. Damani, learned advocate for the respondent No.2. He submits that the provisions of Rule 89 of the Rules, 2016 have been followed and at the most, such an action can only be termed as mere irregularity and therefore, the prayers prayed for in the present writ petition cannot be granted and the impugned order cannot be set aside on the ground of procedural irregularities. He submits that the petitioners had sufficient time to approach the higher forum. However, the petitioners have not chosen to file any appeal before the higher forum and instead, approached this Court seeking the reliefs as prayed for. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the IBC is a complete code in itself, having sufficient checks and balances, remedial avenues and appeals and the supervisory and judicial review powers vested in the High Courts have to be sparingly exercised to interdict the CIRP proceedings under the IBC. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parites, perused the documents, considered the submissions and the judgments relied upon. 6. The Coordinate Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with the present issue in Special Civil Application No.15485 of 2021 vide order dated 04.01.2022. It has been held therein that:- “ 6. In the present case, the issue revolves around the pronouncement of the order dated 14.9.2021 and the right of the petitioners to ask for stay of the order. 7. Brief facts are that, CP (CAA) 74 of 2020 in CA (CAA) 49 of 2020 and Company Application No.20 (AHM) of 2021 was filed by the respondent no.1 before the Tribunal seeking to merge with the respondent no.2 pursuant to the scheme of merger/Amalgamation under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. 7. Brief facts are that, CP (CAA) 74 of 2020 in CA (CAA) 49 of 2020 and Company Application No.20 (AHM) of 2021 was filed by the respondent no.1 before the Tribunal seeking to merge with the respondent no.2 pursuant to the scheme of merger/Amalgamation under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The hearing of the CP (CAA) 74 of 2020 in CA (CAA) 49 of 2020 and Company Application No.20 (AHM) of 2021 was concluded on 6.9.2021 and the matter was reserved for order. On 13.9.2021, the matter was listed for clarification and after seeking clarification, the Tribunal reserved the matter for orders. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the cause list of 14.9.2021, prepared on 13.9.2021, it did not contain the item for pronouncement of CP (CAA) 74 of 2020 in CA (CAA) 49 of 2020 and Company Application No.20 (AHM) of 2021 and the same was pushed on 14.9.2021 itself and therefore, the petitioners were not aware about the listing of the matter for pronouncement of order on 14.9.2021 and the petitioners learnt only on 25.9.2021 and resultantly, the right of the petitioners have been seriously affected of seeking stay at the time of pronouncement, in order to enable them to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Clearly, the infraction if at all, is at the stage of notifying the matter/application for pronouncement and not otherwise. Mr. Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel is right in contending that if there is any infraction, the matter be remitted back so as to cure the infraction from that stage and that everything cannot be nullified for, there is no grievance of any infraction of the proceedings prior to the pronouncement of the order. 8. Further, at the time of admission hearing of the captioned writ petition, reliance was placed on two orders passed by this Court, both dated 18.3.2021 in Special Civil Application Nos.5042 of 2021 and 5090 of 2021. As aforesaid, this Court has granted protection. Notably, the writ petitions have been disposed of by this Court vide oral order dated 26.10.2021. This Court, without going into the merits, has passed identical order, along the lines of the order dated 11.8.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.11031 of 2021. As aforesaid, this Court has granted protection. Notably, the writ petitions have been disposed of by this Court vide oral order dated 26.10.2021. This Court, without going into the merits, has passed identical order, along the lines of the order dated 11.8.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.11031 of 2021. This Court, directed the Tribunal to notify the application for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the petitioners therein to make prayer after the pronouncement of the decision which was already pronounced so as to redress the grievance of the petitioners that they were not aware about the order. This Court, made it clear that the proceedings in connection with the order passed, shall remain as it is and the Tribunal shall neither pass order afresh nor offer a hearing to any of the parties except considering the request, if any, for stay of the order pronounced for the interregnum period to prefer an appeal by the aggrieved party. 9. In support of the grievance, strong reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Kamal K. Singh (supra). The facts in the case before the High Court of Bombay can be distinguished. In the said case, the grievance was that the order allegedly was passed on 22.10.2019, however, it was not listed for pronouncement before the concerned bench. It was specifically averred that the bench had reserved the order and that the petitioner was diligently tracking the daily cause-list. It was also the case of the petitioner therein that the Judicial Member was expected to demit the office as a Member of the Tribunal as he was appointed as a Member of the Appellate Tribunal vide notification dated 15.10.2019. That the insolvency petition was not listed for pronouncement until the Judicial Member demitted the office and took charge on 23.10.2019. It was only on receipt of the order, the petitioner sought to verify from the website of the Tribunal as to whether there was any board or listing of the matter for pronouncement. In the additional causelist dated 22.10.2019, it featured only one item and the additional cause-list, it was created on 5.11.2019 at 5.38 p.m. and uploaded thereafter on the website of the Tribunal. It was the grievance of the petitioner therein that on 22.10.2019, the bench did not conduct any adjudicatory business. In the additional causelist dated 22.10.2019, it featured only one item and the additional cause-list, it was created on 5.11.2019 at 5.38 p.m. and uploaded thereafter on the website of the Tribunal. It was the grievance of the petitioner therein that on 22.10.2019, the bench did not conduct any adjudicatory business. With this background, it was a specific case of the petitioner that the order was neither pronounced under the Rules nor was informed to the petitioner and that the petitioner was made aware only on 8.11.2019 when the respondent therein, sought to take charge of the respondent no.6 company. The grievance of the petitioner was essentially that there was a breach of Rule 150 of the Rules of 2016, i.e. pronouncement of order. It was also the case of the petitioner that neither there was a date of pronouncement nor board was prepared of the proceedings and particularly the pronouncement of order in open Court. 10. The focal point of the adjudication before the High Court of Bombay was breach of Rule 150 of the Rules of 2016 inasmuch as, there was no pronouncement as required. In paragraph 47, the Court has recorded that the case is not where there is any complaint or grievance about manner of pronouncement, the complaint was far more serious, i.e. that there was no pronouncement at all. The grievance was also that the parties were never intimated in advance about the pronouncement of the order and the petitioner had no knowledge about the pronouncement. The Court also summoned the original record and it found that 11th November was the date on which the order was made known or indicated to the petitioner therein and that the same cannot be construed to be an evidence of its prior pronouncement. 11. At this stage, the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Madras relied upon by the respondent in the case of Shaji Purushothoman (supra), is required to be referred to. In the said case, MA/780/2019 and MA/1250/2019 of CP/280/IB/2018 which were heard along with other matters were not shown in the causelist. However, common order was passed allowing the MA/780/2019 and dismissing the MA/1250/2019. In the said case, MA/780/2019 and MA/1250/2019 of CP/280/IB/2018 which were heard along with other matters were not shown in the causelist. However, common order was passed allowing the MA/780/2019 and dismissing the MA/1250/2019. The grievance of the petitioner was, inter alia, that Rule 89 of the Rules of 2016 which speaks about the preparation and publication of the daily cause list, have not been complied with and in absence of any prior publication of the pronouncement of the orders, the petitioner has been put to grave prejudice and irreparable loss. It was also the case that in terms of Rule 150 of the Rules of 2016, the Tribunal, after hearing the parties, shall make and pronounce an order either at or, as soon as thereafter as may be practicable but not later than thirty days from the final hearing. The petitioner therein, was aggrieved that the cause-list as to the pronouncement of the orders, have not been pre-published or uploaded in the website coupled with the fact that in the additional cause-list, there was no indication as to the pronouncement of the orders and the orders having came to be pronounced after two months, it deserves to be quashed and set aside with a further direction for listing and hearing of the matter afresh. Reference has been made to the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Kamal K. Singh (supra). Considering various judgments of the Apex Court on the aspect of effect of the Rules being mandatory or directory, it held that it can be considered only to be directory. The High Court of Judicature at Madras was of the opinion that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay has not considered as to the directory/mandatory nature of the statutory Rules. While not entertaining the writ petition, it directed the petitioner therein to work out a remedy by making a challenge to the competent forum in accordance with law. 12. In the present case, the board of 14.9.2021 was prepared on 13.9.2021. By preparing the additional board on 14.9.2021, the CP (CAA) 74 of 2020 in CA (CAA) 49 of 2020 and Company Application No.20 (AHM) of 2021 was listed at Sr. 12. In the present case, the board of 14.9.2021 was prepared on 13.9.2021. By preparing the additional board on 14.9.2021, the CP (CAA) 74 of 2020 in CA (CAA) 49 of 2020 and Company Application No.20 (AHM) of 2021 was listed at Sr. No.136 for Pronouncement of the Order, and it is alleged that the petitioners were not aware; however, so was not the case before the High Court of Bombay. In the present case, the matter was very much listed, may be subsequently, but on 14.9.2021, and the pronouncement has taken place and undisputedly, on the very next date, i.e. on 15.9.2021, the order was uploaded on the website of the Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioners is that they had learnt only on 25.9.2021. In the facts of the present case, if one is to consider the prejudice, the right of the petitioners is affected only to a limited extent of requesting stay of the operation and implementation of the order dated 14.9.2021 so as to enable the petitioners to approach the Appellate Tribunal within the period of limitation. 13. Though it is the case of the petitioners that there is a serious infraction, on the part of the Tribunal in not following the procedure under Rule 89 of Part-IX, essentially, the grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners have lost the opportunity to seek stay at the time of pronouncement, so also opportunity to immediately move for appeal and seek stay. At the cost of repetition, it is required to be noted that the order was passed on 14.9.2021 and the petitioners learnt it on 25.9.2021 and the present writ petition has been filed on 6.10.2021. It is not that neither the order was listed for pronouncement nor was uploaded on the website of the Tribunal. Had it been the case of non-listing of the matter for pronouncement and not have been uploaded on the website of the Tribunal, the grievance of the petitioners would have been justified. Perceptibly, the listing of CP (CAA) 74 of 2020 in CA (CAA) 49 of 2020 and Company Application No.20 (AHM) of 2021 for the pronouncement of order was very much there and the order was pronounced on 14.9.2021 and was thereafter, uploaded on the website of the Tribunal on 15.9.2021 and was very much in the public domain. Perceptibly, the listing of CP (CAA) 74 of 2020 in CA (CAA) 49 of 2020 and Company Application No.20 (AHM) of 2021 for the pronouncement of order was very much there and the order was pronounced on 14.9.2021 and was thereafter, uploaded on the website of the Tribunal on 15.9.2021 and was very much in the public domain. The infraction, if at all, was at the stage of listing of the matter for the purpose of pronouncement. With a view to seeing that the right of the petitioners is not prejudiced, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would meet if the infraction is cured by remitting the matter back to the Tribunal. 14. Accordingly, keeping the issue open about the alleged nonadherence of Rule 89 of the Rules of 2016, this Court relegates the petitioners to the Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to notify the CP (CAA) 74 of 2020 in CA (CAA) 49 of 2020 and Company Application No.20 (AHM) of 2021, for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the petitioners to request the Tribunal for stay of the operation, implementation and execution of the order, so as to enable the petitioners to approach the Appellate Tribunal. So far as the order dated 14.9.2021 is concerned, it shall remain and the matter be listed only for the purpose as aforesaid for seeking stay by the petitioners.” 7. Further, similar view was taken by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.5042 of 2021 vide order dated 26.10.2021. 8. The aforesaid judgments also take note of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsels for the respondents. 9. In view of the consistent view taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and keeping in view the non-adherence to the provisions of Rule 89 of the Rules, 2016, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners be relegated to the NCLT for providing an opportunity to the petitioners to request the NCLT for stay of the operation, implementation and execution of the order so as to enable the petitioners to approach the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 09.02.2026 in Company Petition No.417 of 2026 and IA No.45 of 2026 is suspended till 19.02.2026. The petitioners are directed to file an appropriate application before the respondent No.3 NCLT, Ahmedabad on 18.02.2026. Accordingly, the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 09.02.2026 in Company Petition No.417 of 2026 and IA No.45 of 2026 is suspended till 19.02.2026. The petitioners are directed to file an appropriate application before the respondent No.3 NCLT, Ahmedabad on 18.02.2026. Upon filing of such application, the registry of the NCLT shall list the application of petitioners on 19.02.2026 before the Bench of the NCLT which has passed the impugned order. The learned Bench of the NCLT shall hear and dispose of the application of the petitioners on 19.02.2026 itself on its own merits and in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case nor any opinion is expressed thereon. With aforesaid observations and directions, the present Special Civil Application stands disposed of. No order as to costs.