Bombay High Court Imposes ₹50,000 Cost On Petitioner For Challenging Reserved NCLT Order

The Bombay High Court recently imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on a petitioner for filing a writ petition against a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order that had merely been reserved and not yet pronounced.

A division bench of Justices R I Chagla and Farhan P Dubash held that the petition was not maintainable before the High Court

“Thus, the Order reserved has not yet been pronounced. Accordingly, the Order dated 4th August, 2025 is not amenable to challenge in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ",

Despite the Court having made its stand on maintainability clear, the petitioner insisted on arguing the matter and wasting the Court's time. The Court therefore deemed it fit to impose a cost on the petitioner.

"The learned Counsel for the Petitioner though having appraised of this Court's view on non maintainability of the Petition, has insisted on going with the arguments on merits and thus wasting this Court's time. Accordingly, we consider it fit to impose cost of Rs.50,000/- and which shall be paid to Indian Red Cross Society, Mumbai"

The petition was filed by one Shripal Sevantilal Morakhia, who sought to quash the NCLT's order dated August 4, 2025, by which the tribunal had reserved its decision in an interim application in an ongoing insolvency matter. The petitioner also sought a stay on the resolution plan approved by the NCLT on May 7, 2025.

Morakhia relied on Rule 150 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which requires tribunals to pronounce orders within 30 days from the final hearing. He cited the Bombay High Court's 2019 judgment in Kamal K. Singh v. Union of India, where the Court stressed that delays in delivering judgments must be avoided.

However, the High Court clarified that Kamal K. Singh did not deal with the specific issue of whether a writ petition can lie against an order that is only reserved and not yet delivered. It stated that the precedent did not support interference at this stage.

Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat, appearing for one of the respondents, informed the Court that the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The appellate tribunal had, on August 21, 2025, taken note of the reserved status of the order and directed that it could be placed on record once pronounced.

The High Court observed that the petitioner had availed the proper appellate remedy and reiterated that a writ petition cannot lie merely because the NCLT has reserved its order.

Case Title: Shripal Sevantilal Morakhia v National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Thru. The Registrar (NCLT) & Ors.

Case Number: WRIT PETITION (L) NO.31679 OF 2025

For Petitioner: Advocate Pratik Sarkar and advocate Khirbha SG instructed by Vidhi Legal

For Respondents: Advocate Shyam Kapadia, Thru V.C., with Kunal Kaul and Fatema Kachwalla and Virgil Braganza instructed by JSA for Respondent No.2.

Advocate Bhalchandra Palav with advocates Aniket Dighe and Pinky Pawar for Respondent No.3.

Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat with advocates Anirudh Gambhir, Madhav Kanoria with Surbhi Pareek instructed by Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas for Respondent No.4.

Click here to read/download order