The Supreme Court has made clear that its requests to courts and tribunals are directions, telling the NCLAT to explain why an appeal it was earnestly asked to hear was left untouched while insolvency was admitted.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on October 27, 2026 said that any request it makes to a court or tribunal must be treated as a direction, and that non-compliance will be looked into very seriously, as it issued notice and asked the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to explain why an appeal was not heard despite the Court’s earlier order, while barring the constitution of the Committee of Creditors in the meantime [Sona Bansal v. Vashisht Kumar Goyal and Others].
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Meenakshi Arora for the applicant, Sona Bansal, along with counsel for the first respondent and for the fourth respondent bank.
How the matter reached the Court
The dispute arises from interim orders dated June 17 and June 29, 2026 passed by the NCLAT Principal Bench in New Delhi in an application in Company Appeal (AT) No. 210 of 2026. The applicant had challenged those orders before the Supreme Court, seeking, among other things, permission for the company concerned to raise capital through a rights issue at par, offered to all existing shareholders in proportion to their holdings.
On July 15, 2026, the Bench found it difficult to adjudicate the disputed questions of fact and left all legal contentions open before the NCLAT, where the matter was listed on July 23, 2026. The order recorded that the Court was informed that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had reserved its order on the Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It then added an “earnest request” to the NCLAT to see that the matter was heard on July 23 “for sure”.
What happened since
When the matter was mentioned on October 27, Mr. Sibal and Ms. Arora told the Court that the NCLAT had not heard the matter till date. They also pointed out that, in the meantime, the order reserved by the NCLT had been pronounced and the Section 7 application had been admitted. The Bench was told that the next date fixed by the NCLAT is November 17, 2026.
The Bench said it was “quite disturbed” with the manner in which the NCLAT had conducted itself in the litigation, adding that the earlier request was made out of deference to its position and to ensure that the judicial office it holds is not belittled in any manner.
Request is a direction
The Court then spelt out the principle in plain terms:
“When the Supreme Court makes a request to any Court or Tribunal, it has to be construed as a direction and not just a request.”
“…if there is any request made by the Supreme Court to any Court or Tribunal, the same shall be treated as a direction and non-compliance of such direction shall be looked into very seriously.”
The directions
The Court issued notice, returnable on November 19, 2026, and permitted dasti service in addition. It directed that the NCLAT “shall offer its explanation as to why the matter has not been heard till this date, despite our specific order”. It also ordered that, in the meantime, there shall not be any constitution of the Committee of Creditors.
The Committee of Creditors is the body of financial creditors that takes the key decisions once a company enters the corporate insolvency resolution process, including on a resolution plan. Freezing its constitution keeps the process from moving ahead while the Court examines the NCLAT’s position.
The order records no finding on the merits of the underlying dispute between the parties, and the questions in the appeal remain pending.
Why the order matters
The order removes any doubt about how the Supreme Court’s courteous language is to be read by subordinate courts and tribunals. An “earnest request” from the apex court is not an invitation that can be set aside for a later date; it carries the force of a direction, and a failure to act on it invites scrutiny of the body concerned.
In insolvency proceedings, where timelines drive outcomes, the point has practical weight. Here, the Section 7 application was admitted before the appeal that the Court had asked to be heard was taken up, and the Court has now asked the NCLAT to account for that, while pausing the next procedural step by barring the constitution of the CoC.
Case Title: Sona Bansal v. Vashisht Kumar Goyal and Others [Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 54224/2026, IA No. 269368/2026]
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 27, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Meenakshi Arora for the applicant; J. Rajesh, Advocate, for respondent no. 1; Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Advocate, for respondent no. 4 (bank)