In an extraordinary move, a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judge in Chennai recused himself from a corporate insolvency appeal after disclosing and recording a personal message from his brother requesting leniency in the matter. The judge’s decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to impartiality and ethical conduct.
The Recorded Message
Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, who was presiding over the case, revealed that his brother had sent him a heartfelt message regarding the proceedings. In his order, the judge documented the message, which read:
“Brother, what can be in this paper that I am sending, what is the possibility of it happening, please try to give proper advice. This is a matter of your own court. My intention is not to hurt in any way, and if I have caused any kind of trouble, then I apologize.”
Further, the message continued:
“There is no pressure of any kind because whatever decision you and the court take, we will accept it. I just request that you can reserve this matter as per your discretion and if there is even the slightest scope, it will be better if you have complete information about it.”
Justice Sharma expressed regret, stating:
“I apologize to your court and your profession. I have never made this request before but what I am doing, I am saying it for the first time to the court that this is our personal matter.”
Recusal and Reassignment
Citing these circumstances, Justice Sharma recused himself, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judiciary. His order noted:
“With a very sorry note, I refuse to hear this appeal. Let the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chairperson for the nomination of another bench.”
Following the recusal, senior counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw from the case, which was granted.
Case Background
The case, filed by Mr. Babu Manoharan Jaikumar Christhurajan, sought to overturn an NCLT order initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings. The appellant claimed that dues to financial creditors had been cleared and sought to quash the CIRP and regain control of the corporate debtor.
The case will now proceed before a newly assigned bench.
