Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"55. Now coming to the mandatory nature of NCLT Rules, 2016 more particularly Rules 150 and 153, in the light of the settled legal position that consequences that may arise on account of the non-adherence to the time line/procedure have not been indicated in the said Rules, it can be considered to be only directory.
56. The Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Kamal K. Singh V. Union of India [MANU/MH/3538/2019] is distinguishable for the reason that the legal position as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the various pronouncements as to the directory/mandatory nature of Statutory Rules have not been dealt with in the said judgment. It is a settled legal dictum that "when a public functionary is required to perform a public function within a time frame, the same will be held to be directory unless the consequences there for are specified". Admittedly, the consequences that may emanate as to the non-adherence/infraction of the Rules have not been indicated in the Statutory Rules. Hence, the impugned common order cannot be set aside on the ground."