Introduction:
In Phoenix Arc Private Limited v. Union of India & Others [WP 37828/2025], the Karnataka High Court addressed a recurring and systemic concern affecting litigants before tribunals—delay in uploading written and signed orders after oral pronouncement. A Bench presided over by Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the Registrar of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru, to place on record whether the tribunal has an institutional mechanism for date and time stamping of interim and final orders at the time of uploading. The Court underscored the importance of transparency, certainty, and promptness in judicial administration, noting that the High Court already follows a system of date–time stamping and that similar standards ought to be implemented by the NCLT. The direction came while considering a writ petition seeking immediate issuance and uploading of an NCLT order that had been orally pronounced on July 29 but allegedly not made available despite directions from the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
Factual Background:
The petitioner, Phoenix Arc Private Limited, approached the Karnataka High Court invoking its writ jurisdiction with a specific grievance: although the NCLT had orally pronounced an order on July 29, the written, signed order was not issued, published, released, or uploaded within a reasonable time. The absence of the uploaded order impeded the petitioner’s ability to pursue remedies, comply with directions, or seek appellate relief—consequences that strike at the heart of procedural fairness.
It was the petitioner’s case that even after approaching the NCLAT, which directed the NCLT to furnish the order, the order remained unavailable for a considerable period. This delay prompted the petitioner to seek directions from the High Court to ensure that tribunals adhere to time-bound uploading of orders and maintain verifiable records indicating when an order is made available to the public and parties.
Issues for Consideration:
- Whether the NCLT is required to upload written and signed orders within a reasonable and fixed timeframe after oral pronouncement.
- Whether the absence of a date and time stamping system for uploaded orders undermines transparency and litigant rights.
- What directions are necessary to ensure institutional accountability and consistency in tribunal practice.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa submitted that the delay in uploading the NCLT’s written order—despite oral pronouncement and even after NCLAT’s direction—was unjustified and prejudicial. It was argued that litigants cannot be left in limbo after an order is pronounced, particularly when statutory timelines for compliance or appeal often commence from the date of communication or availability of the order.
Counsel emphasized that oral pronouncement without prompt availability of the written order defeats access to justice and procedural certainty. The petitioner urged the Court to issue directions mandating that tribunals issue, upload, and make available orders expeditiously, preferably within a week, and to require a date–time stamping mechanism so parties can reliably ascertain when an order is uploaded.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents:
On behalf of the NCLT, Advocate M. N. Kumar, on instructions from the Deputy Registrar, NCLT Bengaluru, submitted that the order in question had been uploaded on the day of the hearing. The submission sought to address the immediate grievance regarding non-availability.
However, the Court sought clarity beyond the immediate case—specifically whether there exists a systemic practice at the NCLT for date and time stamping of orders at the point of upload, so that disputes regarding delay and availability can be objectively resolved.
Court’s Analysis and Observations:
Justice Suraj Govindaraj addressed the issue with a focus on institutional best practices and litigant-centric administration of justice. The Court orally observed that orders should be uploaded within a maximum of one week, reflecting a standard that balances administrative realities with litigant rights.
Drawing a comparison with the High Court’s own systems, the Bench noted that date and time stamps are affixed to orders, providing transparency and certainty. The Court indicated its intent to extend similar expectations to the NCLT, recognizing that tribunals exercise significant adjudicatory powers and their processes must meet standards of openness and reliability.
The Court directed the Registrar to place on record: (i) confirmation of when the order was released/uploaded, and (ii) whether the NCLT has implemented a date and time stamping system for uploading interim or final orders. The Registrar was asked to furnish these details by December 17, signaling the Court’s seriousness in ensuring compliance and systemic clarity.
Court’s Directions:
The High Court recorded the submission that the order had been uploaded and directed that the fact of release/upload be placed on record. Crucially, it directed the Registrar of the NCLT, Bengaluru, to inform the Court whether there is an existing system for date and time stamping when orders are uploaded. The Court also underscored, through oral observations, that orders ought to be uploaded within a week.