High Court of Gujarat

SANIL SUTHARversusGAURAV SONI

Disposal: 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
Bench: HEMANT M PRACHCHHAK

Holding

The High Court quashed the NCLT’s penalty of Rs.50,000 and remanded the matter for fresh hearing without awarding costs.

Summary

The petitioner, Sanil Suthar, filed a special civil application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the Companies Act, 1956 seeking to set aside a penalty of Rs.50,000 imposed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for the non‑appearance of counsel. The penalty was ordered on 20‑Jan‑2025 in Transfer Petition No. 91 of 2016 and the petitioner alleged that the reason for the counsel’s absence was not satisfactorily considered. The High Court examined the petition, found merit in the grievance, and held that the NCLT’s order imposing the cost was not justified. Consequently, the Court quashed the penalty, remanded the matter back to the NCLT for fresh consideration, and ordered that no costs be awarded. The petition was therefore allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the penalty of Rs.50,000 imposed by the NCLT for counsel’s non‑appearance is legally valid.
Whether the High Court can recall or review the NCLT order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Whether costs should be awarded against the petitioner.

Legislation cited

Companies Act, 1956

Subjects

Constitutional jurisdictionHigh Court reviewNCLT orderPenalty costsCompanies ActLegal costsAdjournment

Judgment

       C/SCA/3647/2026                                ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3647 of 2026

==========================================
                          SANIL SUTHAR
                              Versus
                      GAURAV SONI & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR RS SANJANWALA FOR RUSHABH H SHAH(7594) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
ARJUN R SHETH(7589) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 24/03/2026

                                 ORAL ORDER


1.      Leave to amend is allowed. Necessary amendment to be carried
out forthwith.


2.      Present petition is <led by the petitioner under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956 seeking following reliefs:-

          “A. That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to recall
              and/or review the order dated 20.1.2025 passed in TP
              No. 91 of 2016;

          B.    That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside
                and waive cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed on the
                Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 5;

          C.    Pass any such other and further orders as this Hon’ble
                Tribunal may deem <t and proper in the facts and



                                    Page 1 of 3
     C/SCA/3647/2026                             ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026




              circumstances of the case and in the interest of
              justice;”


3.    It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner herein is the
original respondent No.2 in Transfer Petition No. 91 of 2016 [CP No.
14 of 2015] pending before the National Company Law Tribunal,
Ahmedabad Bench (Court – II) and the said petitioner was listed
before the Tribunal on 20.11.2025 and on that day, learned counsel
for the petitioner addressed an email to the Registry of the Tribunal
intimating that he was unable to attend the matter as he was not in
town. It is also contended by the petitioner that the Tribunal has
passed an order observing that the reason mentioned in the leave
note was not satisfactory and granted adjournment subject to
payment of costs of Rs.50,000/-, which was to be deposited with the
Prime Minister National Relief Fund. It is further contended by the
petitioner that Interlocutory Application being IA No. 143 of 2025 in CP
No. 15 of 2015 came to be preferred before the Tribunal seeking
review / recall of the order, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide
order dated 16.02.2026.


4.    Being aggrieved the said order, the petitioner has preferred this
petition.


5.    Heard Mr.R. S. Sanjanwala, learned senior counsel for
Mr.Rushabh Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the
material placed on record.


6.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
averments made in the petition and the submissions, the petition
deserves consideration.



                                Page 2 of 3
          C/SCA/3647/2026                                                                ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026




 7.         In view of the aforesaid aspect, the petition is allowed. The
 order passed by the Tribunal to pay penalty costs of Rs.50,000/- and
 to deposit the same in a particular fund is hereby quashed and set
 aside. The matter is remanded back to the concerned Tribunal and
 the Tribunal shall hear the matter and decide the same in accordance
 with law. In case the case precious absence by the learned counsel,
 the Tribunal is ordered to pass appropriate orders. There shall be no
 order as to costs.

                                                                      (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
 V.R. PANCHAL


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 25/03/2026 15:15:13




                                                          Page 3 of 3

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Constitutional jurisdiction"Sign in to search