The bench directed the two NCLAT members – Justice Rakesh Kumar (judicial) and Alok Srivastava (technical) – to appear before it on October 30. While Justice Kumar is a retired judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court, Srivastava is a former Union Law Secretary. Observing that the National Company Law Tribunal and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal “have got down to a rot now”, the Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to two NCLAT members, asking them to show cause as to why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them for allegedly defying its directions in a dispute relating to Finolex Cables. “We are of the view that it is necessary to pass orders to ensure that the dignity of this court is restored…We are of the view that the members of NCLAT bench are liable to be proceeded against in contempt proceedings. We issue notice of show-cause against the members…,” said a three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud. The bench directed the two NCLAT members – Justice Rakesh Kumar (judicial) and Alok Srivastava (technical) – to appear before it on October 30. While Justice Kumar is a retired judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court, Srivastava is a former Union Law Secretary. The bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, set aside an October 13 NCLAT judgment on an appeal relating to the Annual General Meeting of Finolex Cables. It directed that the matter be heard afresh by NCLAT Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan. Hearing a plea in the morning of October 13, the Supreme Court had asked the scrutinizer to “forthwith declare” the result of the September 29 Annual General Meeting and directed the NCLAT to pronounce its judgment in the pending appeal “after it is duly apprised of the fact that the result of the Annual General Meeting has been declared”. However, in the post-lunch session, the Supreme Court was informed that the NCLAT bench comprising Justice Kumar and Srivastava had declared the judgment despite the counsel for the appellant bringing to their notice the apex court’s direction. Taking exception, the Supreme Court then said that “if what is stated is correct, this will clearly constitute the defiance of the order of this Court by the NCLAT”, and asked its Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan to conduct an inquiry and submit a report to it. On Wednesday, the apex court bench, after perusing the Chairperson’s report, said that according to Justice Kumar the matter was included in the October 12 list for pronouncing judgment. Justice Kumar also explained that as per the procedure followed by NCLAT, mentioning (when urgent matters are brought to the notice of the presiding officer) is allowed only after judgment is pronounced and hence he was not aware of the top court’s direction while announcing the judgment. The CJI also said that the statements of the members to the Chairperson were silent on the fact that the October 13 SC direction was brought to their attention before they announced their judgment. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the appellant, said the court’s order was uploaded on its official website at 1.55 pm on October 13 and this was brought to the notice of the NCLAT bench at 2 pm. The NCLAT bench, however, went ahead and pronounced the judgment although the scrutinizer’s report was uploaded only after 2.40 pm due to technical issues. CJI Chandrachud expressed concerns over the functioning of the NCLT and NCLAT. “I am not talking about Justice Ashok Bhushan. He is one of the most dignified judges I know, but NCLT and NCLAT have got down to a rot now. This case is an illustration of that rot,” he said. In its order, the Supreme Court also noted that the tribunal bench had on October 16 suspended its order saying that the NCLAT Registry had brought to its notice an email containing the copy of the October 13 order. The CJI bench was of the view that the suspension was only to create the impression that the NCLAT bench was not aware of its direction when it pronounced the judgment. “This order creates an impression that the bench of the NCLAT was apprised of the order of this court for the first time. This prima facie is a falsehood since it has clearly emerged before this court that the NCLAT bench was apprised of the order of this court,” it said. “The manner in which the NCLAT has passed the directions is unbecoming of a Tribunal. The NCLAT is duty-bound by orders of this court. It was apprised of the fact that this court had passed the order,” it said.