According to Section 252 (1) of the 2013 Companies Act, the Tribunal must afford the Registrar, the Company, and all other parties involved a reasonable opportunity to submit arguments and be heard before rendering a decision. According to the appellant, Section 252 (1) of the Companies Act of 2013 mandates that the Tribunal must afford the Registrar, the Company, and all other parties involved a reasonable opportunity to present their arguments and be heard before making any orders under this Section. In accordance with Rule 37 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, the Tribunal must notify the Respondent to submit justification in opposition to the Application or Petition on the day of the hearing mentioned in the notice.
In the instant case titled Pankaj Kumar Mishra v. Registrar of Companies, Mumbai & Ors., the issue raised for clarification before the NCLAT was:
Whether the Tribunal's decision to reinstate the company's name in the Register of Companies is legal?
With regard to this issue, the order is unenforceable in law because the judgement was rendered without providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to offer arguments or be heard. It is therefore overturned, and the case is sent back to the NCLT's Mumbai bench with the instruction that, after hearing from the parties, it would consider the aforementioned appeal under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, in accordance with the law, unaffected by its earlier Order.
NCLAT categorically stated that,
"In such a situation, we are of the view that without giving any opportunity of hearing, the Learned Tribunal has passed the Impugned Order. The order is not sustainable in law. Thus, the impugned order hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with the direction that after hearing the parties decided the Appeal under Section 252 of the Act, as per law without influence by its earlier Order".