The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed the foundational principle that judicial records of what transpires in court are conclusive and cannot be contradicted by affidavits or subsequent submissions. This judgment clarifies the exclusive procedural route available to parties who believe a court has misrecorded counsel’s conduct.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Shaikh Abdul Jabbar and another, challenged an order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, which imposed costs of Rs. 20,000 on them. The NCLT observed that the petitioners’ counsel had "attempted to miscommunicate the facts of the case" and attributed this to incorrect instructions given by the petitioners. The order directed the payment of Rs. 20,000 to the Pay and Account Officer, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Mumbai, and listed the matter for hearing on 30.03.2026.
Key Facts
- The NCLT’s order dated 19.01.2026 contained a specific observation regarding counsel’s conduct: "Learned counsel has attempted to miscommunicate the facts of the case."
- The NCLT imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 on the petitioners based on this observation.
- The petitioners contended that the NCLT’s characterization of counsel’s conduct was factually incorrect and did not reflect what transpired in court.
- No application for correction or recall was filed before the NCLT prior to filing the writ petition.
Procedural History
- 19.01.2026: NCLT, Mumbai Bench, passed order imposing Rs. 20,000 costs on petitioners for alleged miscommunication of facts.
- 30.03.2026: Date originally listed for compliance with the cost order.
- 24.03.2026: Writ Petition No. 3335 of 2026 filed before the Bombay High Court.
- 24.03.2026: Hearing before Justice N. J. Jamadar.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
The petitioners argued that the NCLT’s observation was factually erroneous and that the imposition of costs was unjustified. They contended that the court had misapprehended the nature of counsel’s submissions and that the cost order was therefore illegal and violative of natural justice.
For the Respondent
The Respondent, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, relied on the principle that judicial records are conclusive and did not contest the legal position advanced by the Court during hearing.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the NCLT’s order dated 19.01.2026, setting aside the cost of Rs. 20,000, and a direction that no adverse inference be drawn against them based on the impugned observation.
The Legal Issue
Can a party challenge a court’s observation regarding counsel’s conduct in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, without first seeking correction from the same court that made the observation?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners argued that the NCLT’s observation was factually incorrect and amounted to an unjustified imputation on counsel’s professional integrity. They contended that the imposition of costs without a proper hearing or opportunity to explain constituted a violation of natural justice. They relied on general principles of fairness and the right to reputation.
For the Respondent
The Respondent did not file a detailed written submission but accepted the Court’s exposition of the law regarding the conclusiveness of judicial records.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of judicial records and the settled legal principle governing their sanctity. It cited the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. (AIR 1982 SC 1249), which held that statements of fact recorded by a court in its judgment regarding what transpired during proceedings are conclusive and cannot be contradicted by affidavits, oral submissions, or other evidence.
"We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence."
The Court emphasized that the only permissible remedy for a party who believes a judicial record is erroneous is to approach the same court that made the observation, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges. This is consistent with the principle laid down by Lord Buckmaster in Madhusudan v. Chandrabati (AIR 1917 PC 30), which requires a party to seek correction directly from the court whose record is challenged.
The Court noted that the petitioners had bypassed this mandatory procedural step by directly approaching the High Court via a writ petition. This, the Court held, was an abuse of process and undermined the integrity of judicial records.
The Verdict
The petition was withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to file an application before the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, seeking recall or correction of the observation dated 19.01.2026. The Court directed the NCLT to consider such an application on its merits and in accordance with law. No costs were awarded to either party.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Records Are Conclusive
- Practitioners must never file writ petitions challenging a court’s observation on counsel’s conduct without first approaching the same court for correction.
- Affidavits or supplementary submissions attempting to contradict judicial records will be summarily rejected.
Corrective Remedy Is Procedural, Not Appellate
- The remedy lies in a formal application for recall or rectification under the court’s inherent powers, not in collateral proceedings.
- Delay in seeking correction may result in waiver of the right to challenge the record.
Costs Orders Based on Misrecorded Conduct Are Vulnerable
- If a cost order is premised on a mischaracterization of counsel’s conduct, the proper course is to seek correction of the record first.
- Writ petitions filed prematurely on this ground will be dismissed or withdrawn with liberty to approach the lower forum.
