Tarsem K Ruby vs Ojas Medical Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

In the matter of: Tarsem K Ruby Appellant Vs Ojas Medical Services Pvt Ltd & Ors Respondent For Appellant:Mr Krishnendu Datta, Sr Advocate, Mr Karan Gandhi, Mr S Tiwari, Ms Vidhika Kapoor, Ms Riya Jain, Mr Yash Tandon, Mr Harsh G, Advocates.

For Respondent:Mr Abhijeet Sinha, Sr Advocate, Mr. Tarun Khaira, Advocate for R1,2,4,7 to 11. JUDGEMENT

JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 28.11.2025 passed

by Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh in CA No.48/2022,

121/2022, 158/2023, 115/2025, 117/2025, 205/2025, 206/2025 in CP

No.8/Chd/Hry/2022. The impugned order is to the following effect:-

"Mr Karan Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to advance arguments, which he began to do. During the course of which, he was repeatedly requested to brief and concise in his arguments. However, he continues to insist on reading the entire pleadings. He has already been granted more than one hour to address the arguments, yet he is still seeking substantially more time, which cannot be allowed. He is accordingly directed to file a short note within three days, along with supporting judgments, covering the point of his arguments, which will be considered while deciding the matter.

2 Heard the Ld Counsels for the respondents. They also directed to file a short note covering their points of arguments alongwith supporting judgments within three days.

Heard. Order reserved."

2. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant the

impugned order denies an opportunity of being heard and thus violates the

principles of natural justice. He referred to Section 424 of the Companies Act,

2013 to say the guiding factor qua the procedure to be adopted by the Tribunal

and Appellate Tribunal, is natural justice. Further he referred to Rule 44 of the

NCLT Rules which reads the Tribunal shall notify the date and place of hearing.

However, the rule does not mention the time of hearing to be given to each of the

party and without giving a time limit in advance to the Ld. counsels, the Ld.

counsel cannot be abruptly stopped in mid way of his arguments to say one

hour is enough for his arguments and rest he should file written note(s). It is

argued if this procedure is to be adhered to, then the time limit be given in

advance to the learned counsels so that they can prepare and conclude their

arguments within such time limit, otherwise not giving a complete hearing to the

satisfaction of the Ld. Counsel, there shall be denial of hearing and be a violation

of principles of natural justice.

3. The learned counsel for the Respondent argued otherwise stating inter alia

once a matter is reserved for orders, no appeal shall lie to seek further hearings

in the matter.

4. Heard.

3

5. If one peruse the order dated 28th November, 2025 it shows various

applications were listed on the said date viz CAs 205/2025, 206/2025,

115/2025 and the notices were issued on these applications but as alleged such

applications were not taken up and the Company Petition was heard and

reserved for orders. The grievance is the impugned order does not mention as to

what shall be the fate of such applications, listed on that day as only the

arguments on the Company Petition No.8/2022 were heard. As alleged some of

such applications were to bring on record subsequent facts viz issuance of the

rights issue which further curtailed the percentage of shares held by the

appellants herein and needed to be heard, as would have demonstrated

subsequently acts of Oppression and Mismanagement on the part of

respondents.

6. On perusal of record, however, we find an order dated 31.10.2025 wherein

both applications CA No.205 (supra_and 206 (supra) were taken up and both the

parties on these applications were heard and both were asked to complete

pleadings etc. Company Petition No.8/2022 was, however, adjourned to

14.11.2025 and then to 28.11.2025, when it was finally heard; arguments were

got concluded; the appellants were directed to give a note of submissions and

the matter was reserved for orders.

7. Further admittedly, the Ld. Bench had presided over at about 12.15 PM

and this matter was called at around 12.50 PM. Though it is alleged the counsel

was ready to advance arguments in CA 205/2025 and 206/2025 and also in CA 4

115/2025 but the Ld. Members insisted the Ld counsel to argue his main

Company Petition and such applications shall be heard after the arguments are

heard in the main company petition.

8. The counsel for the appellant though objected and submitted the

miscellaneous applications, being result of further acts of Oppression and

Mismanagement needed be decided prior to hearing of Company Petition, but

the Ld. NCLT did not adhere to his submissions and rather heard the arguments

in company petition uptil 1.30 PM and thereafter instructed the Ld.counsel for

the appellant to prepare his arguments during lunch time and to reassemble at

2.30 PM. The arguments were then heard at 2.30 PM and thereafter at 2.45 PM,

the Ld. NCLT instructed the Ld.counsel to finish his arguments by 3 PM and

thereafter, the impugned order was passed. Heard.

9. We have perused the impugned order. It records more than one hour was

given to the learned counsel for the appellant to represent his case and during

this period he was repeatedly requested to be brief and concise in his arguments,

but he insisted on reading the entire pleading which the Ld. NCLT refused to

allow and directed him to file a short note within three days alongwith supporting

judgements covering his point of argument which shall be considered while

deciding the matter. These facts do not show no hearing was ever given to the

appellant for representing his case. The law only requires a reasonable and fair

opportunity to be given to the parties to represent their cases and admittedly the

Ld. NCLT has power to regulate its own procedure.

5

10. In P.N. Eswara Iyer and others Vs Registrar, Supreme Court of India,

(1980) 4 Supreme court Cases 680, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

19.xxxxx The right to be heard is of the essence but hearing does not mean more than fair opportunity to present one's point on a dispute, followed by a fair consideration thereof by fair minded judges. Let us not remanticise this process nor stretch it to snap it. Presentation can be written or oral, depending on the justice of situation. Where oral persuasiveness is necessary it is unfair to exclude it and, therefore, arbitrary too.

But where oral presentation is not that essential, its exclusion is not obnoxious. What is crucial is the guarantee of the application of an instructed, intelligent, impartial and open mind to the points presented.

37.xxxxSuch an attitude is an overreaction to argumentum ad nauseum. But we must importantly underscore that while lawyer's advocacy cannot be made to judicial measure especially if judges are impatient, there is a strong case for processing argumentation by rationalization, streamlining, abbreviation and in, special situations, elimination. Review proceedings in the Supreme Court belongs to the last category. There is no rigidity about forensic strategies and the court must retain a flexible power in regard to limiting the time of oral arguments or, in exceptional cases, eliminating orality altogether, the paramount principle being fair justice.

11. Admittedly in the present case, the appellant was given an oral hearing for

an hour and further was requested to file his notes of submissions, hence it

cannot be said fair opportunity to represent was not given, thus we are not

inclined to interfere in the impugned order. However, we request the Ld. NCLT

to consider and decide the pending applications, if any, alongwith the main

Company Petition, since it had heard both the parties on such applications too

on 31.10.2025.

12. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. 6

13. Pending applications Nos.7871 and 7872 of 2025 are also disposed of.

(Justice Yogesh Khanna) Member (Judicial)

(Mr Ajai Das Mehrotra) Member (Technical) Dated: 16.01.2026 bm