CRITICALLY ANALYSE THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE

BEING OBSERVED DURING THE PROCEEDINGS, ISSUANCE OF

ORDER AND DISPOSAL OF CASES BY THE NCLT AND NCLAT

Subject: 6.3 Corporate Laws – II

Academic Year: 2021-2022

Submitted by:

Kartik Solanki

UID: UG2019-56

B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) 3rd Year, 6th Semester

Under the Supervision of:

Dr. Shruti Vijay Vaghela

(Assistant Professor of Law)

May, 2022

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

AIR All India Reporter

CA Companies Act 2013

CPC Civil Procedure Code 1908

CIRP Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

ed. Edition

IBC Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

NCLAT National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

NCLT National Company Law Tribunal

p. Page

pp. Pages

rep. Reports

sec. Section

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

v. Versus

W.P. Writ Petition

LIST OF CASES

S. NO. NAME OF THE CASE PG. NO.

1. E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamilnadu 5
2. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Innoventive Industries Ltd 7
3. Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank 8
4. Kaliber Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Tripat Kaur 9
5. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 5
6. Ridge v. Baldwin 5
7. Sree Metaliks Ltd. v. The Union of India 8
8. Starlog Enterprises Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. 9
9. Thomas Bonham v. College of Physicians case 4

LIST OF STATUTES

Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Companies Act 2013
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviation....................................................................................................................i

List of Cases................................................................................................................................i

List of Statutes...........................................................................................................................ii

1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Research Problem........................................................................................................2

1.2 Research Objectives....................................................................................................2

1.3 Research Questions.....................................................................................................2

1.4 Research Hypothesis...................................................................................................3

1.5 Rationale of the Study.................................................................................................3

1.6 Research Methodology................................................................................................3

1.7 Limitation....................................................................................................................3

2. Principles of Natural Justice...............................................................................................4

3. Linking the provisions of CA, 2013 to the Principles of Natural Justice...........................5

4. Relevant Case Laws vis-à-vis the Observance of the Principles of Natural Justice...........7

5. Conclusion and Suggestions.............................................................................................10

6. Bibliography......................................................................................................................iv
1. Introduction

Natural justice has been an inherent part of the justice system since its inception. It
encapsulates the basic principles and cannot be done away with. As remarked by Lord Esher,
“natural justice is the natural sense of what is right and wrong.” 1 The basic objective behind
the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [hereinafter referred to as
“IBC” / “Code”) is to “consolidate and amend the laws dealing with the reorganization and
insolvency resolution of the corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals.”2 Part II of
the IBC provides for “Insolvency Resolution and Liquidation for Corporate Persons.”
According to the provisions of section 7 of the IBC, if a corporate debtor commits a default,
financial creditor single-handedly or many financial creditors conjointly may file an
application to the Adjudicating Authority to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process [hereinafter referred to as “CIRP”].3 The procedure for the operational creditor is
different from that of the financial creditor. As per section 8 of the IBC, the Operational
creditor is bound to deliver a “demand notice” of the operational debt to the corporate debtor
for demanding the payment of the due amount. An operational creditor can make an
application before the Adjudicating Authority for initiation of CIRP only after service of the
demand notice.4

The provision for “demand notice” allows the corporate debtor to pay the default to the
operational creditors before filing any application for CIRP. Section 7 of the Code is silent
about service of any such notice and hence the financial creditor can directly file an
application before the Adjudicating Authority. As per Section 5(1) of the IBC, National
Company Law Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as “NCLT”] is the Adjudicating Authority
under IBC. As part II of the IBC provides for CIRP for Corporate Persons, the Companies
Act, 2013 [hereinafter referred to as “CA, 2013”) is the Bible to deal with the relevant
issues. Section 424 of the CA, 2013 lays down the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal.
It provides that the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal can frame its rule of procedure. But
following the principles of natural justice is a sine qua non. The Tribunal is bound to follow
the principles.5

1
Mr. Siddharth Mohanty, PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, https://articles.manupatra.com/article-
details/Principle-Of-Natural-Justice, (Visited on May 25, 2022).
2
Object, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.
3
Section 7, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.
4
Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.
5
Section 124, Companies Act 2013.

1
The insolvency matters heard by the adjudicating authority have been rampant, of late. There
have been cases defying the principles of natural justice and consequently, the orders of the
adjudicating authority have been reversed by the appellate tribunal. It brings us to a point to
ponder upon i.e., how are the principles of natural justice being observed during the
proceedings, issuance of order and disposal of cases by the National Company Law Tribunal
and for that matter the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. Through the present
paper, the researcher shall throw light upon the above issue in context of the IBC vis-à-vis the
proceedings, issuance of order and disposal of cases by the NCLT and NCLAT. In this paper,
the researcher shall first discuss the basic concept of Natural Justice and its relevant
principles, thereafter, the researcher shall link the principles of Natural Justice with the
provisions of CA, 2013 and the IBC. In the following part, the researcher shall discuss
various case laws to depict how the principles of natural justice are being observed during the
proceedings, issuance of order and disposal of cases by the NCLT and NCLAT. In the
concluding remark, the author shall provide certain suggestions and remarks upon the issue-
in-hand.

1.1 Research Problem

Whether the Principles of Natural Justice are in actuality being observed during the
proceedings, issuance of order and disposal of Cases by the NCLT and the NCLAT?

1.2 Research Objectives

- To analyse the principles of Natural Justice being observed in India and more specifically
by NCLT and NCLAT.
- To identify the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 wherein the principles of natural
justice have been enumerated.

1.3 Research Questions

1. What are the two important principles of Natural Justice?

2. How did the concept of Natural Justice develop in the world and in India?
3. Which are the landmark judgements passed by the Supreme Court pertaining to
observance of the principles of Natural Justice in India?
4. Which provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 speak about the observance of the
principles of Natural Justice?

2
5. What are some relevant judicial pronouncements wherein the NCLT and the NCLAT
have observed the principles of Natural Justice during proceedings, issuance of order and
disposal of cases?
6. What can the NCLT and NCLAT do to advocate the principles of Natural Justice?

1.4 Research Hypothesis

If NCLT and NCLAT start following Sections 420 and 424 of the Companies Act both in
letter and in spirit, then there would be minimal chances of violation of the principles of
Natural Justice by these tribunals.

1.5 Rationale of the Study

The rationale of the study can be summarised on the basis of the provisions of the CA, 2013
and certain relevant judicial pronouncements. The principles of natural justice under the CA,
2013 are contained under Sections 420 and 424 of the CA, 2013. These provisions uphold the
concept of the principles of natural justice and also lay down specifically that the Tribunal
may give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties, before passing its order.
Further, various judicial pronouncements have been deliberated upon in the present paper
through which it can be easily inferred that both the NCLT and NCLAT have to and are in
actuality following the principles of natural justice during proceedings, issuance of order and
disposal of cases.

1.6 Research Methodology

Doctrinal research has been followed for the completion of this project. Textbooks related to
this topic have been referred to. Several primary sources such as statutes have also been
referred for this project. The other major source of information is the internet. The
accessibility of technology has made it possible for students to research on any topic
irrespective of discipline. Articles available on the internet concerning the project have been
taken into account for this project through the internet. The main purpose was to find that sort
of information which would simplify this topic and would help the readers in reaching a
logical conclusion. Major source of information for this project have been books and internet.
Those websites have been referred to which have information regarding the topic to explain
the relevance of this topic.

3
1.7 Limitation

The limitation of the study is th0se characteristics 0f design 0r meth0d0l0gy that have
impacted the interpretati0n 0r applicati0n 0f results 0f the researcher’s w0rk. The research is
limited to educational purposes only. Only that information could be furnished which was
available and whose availability could be authenticated. The researcher was unable to
perform empirical research due to non-availability of proper resources, time and restriction to
the domain of the research.

2. Principles of Natural Justice

The principles of natural justice have been developed and followed by the judiciary to protect
the right of the public against the arbitrariness of the administrative authorities. Natural
Justice implies fairness, reasonableness, equity and equality. It is the concept of the Common
Law, which stands on the same footing as the concept of “procedural due process” of
America. According to Justice Hegde, the aim of natural justice is to secure justice; to
prevent miscarriage of justice and to give protection to the public against the arbitrariness.6

In Roman law the concept of natural justice consists of two essential rules:

a) Audi Alteram Partem – The literal meaning of this maxim is “no one should be
condemned unheard”, giving an opportunity to both the parties to defend themselves. The
major ideology behind this principle is that no person should be left unheard, assuring fair
hearing and justice to both the parties.

b) Nemo judex in Causa Sua – The literal meaning of the maxim is “no one can be a judge
in his own cause”, basically relates to the doctrine of bias. This principle emerged in 1610
in Thomas Bonham v. College of Physicians case,7 where the Chief Justice Coke, even
said that if a man is made a judge in his own cause, then such an act will be declared as
void.

Further, the English Common Law consists of the principles of natural justice. The rules
requiring impartial adjudications and fair hearings can be traced back to the medieval
precedents and indeed they were not unknown in the ancient world. As deliberated above, in
Thomas Bonham v. College of Physicians (1610), Chief Justice Coke held that an Act of the
6
Supra note 1; Somya Goel and Shelly, OPERATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN CIVIL
PROCEDURE, https:// articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Operation-of-Principles-of-Natural-Justice-in-
Civil-Procedure, (Visited on May 25, 2022).
7
8 Co. Rep. 107 77 Eng. Rep. 638.

4
Parliament is void if it makes a person judge in his own cause or was otherwise against
common right or reason. Coke then made the following general statement:8

“And it appears in our books, that in many cases, the common law will control acts of
parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an act of
parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be
performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such act to be void; and,
therefore, in … Thomas Tregor’s case Judge Herle said, some statutes are made
against law and right, which those who made them perceiving, would not put them in
execution…”

But the year 1963 proved to be watershed in the development of concept of natural justice in
common law world. With the expansion of the administrative process, the wide abuse of the
power of the administrative authorities became evident. In the case of Ridge v. Baldwin,9 the
applicability of natural justice to the quasi-judicial bodies took place. Ridge v. Baldwin is
regarded as the Magna Carta of natural justice. The judgment of Lord Reid widened the ambit
of the notion of natural justice.10

Moving further to the Position of the notion of natural justice in India. Article 14, 19, 21 of
the Indian Constitution lay down the cornerstone of natural justice in India. 11 In the case of E.
P. Royappa v. State of Tamilnadu,12 the apex court held that a properly expressed and
authenticated order can be challenged on the ground that condition precedent to the making
of order has not been fulfilled or the principles of natural justice have not been observed. In
another landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,13 the apex court held that law
which allows any administrative authority to take a decision affecting the rights of the people,
without assigning the reason for such action, cannot be accepted as a procedure, which is just,
fair and reasonable, hence violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. Linking the provisions of CA, 2013 to the Principles of Natural Justice

The principles of natural justice under the CA, 2013 are contained under Sections 420 and
424 of the CA, 2013.14 These provisions uphold the concept of the principles of natural
8
Ibid.
9
(1964) AC 40, Jain, Cases, I, 475-479.
10
Supra note 6.
11
Articles 14, 19 and 21, Constitution of India.
12
AIR 1974 SC 555.
13
(1978) 1 SCC 248.
14
Sections 420 and 424, Companies Act 2013; Avtar Singh, COMPANY LAW, 17th ed. 2017, p. 760.

5
justice and also lay down specifically that the Tribunal may give a reasonable opportunity of
being heard to the parties, before passing its order.

Section 420(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 states, “The Tribunal may, after giving the
parties to any proceeding before it, a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such
orders thereon as it thinks fit”. Further, Section 424 of the CA, 2013 reads as,

“424 (1). The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not, while disposing of any
proceeding before it or, as the case may be, an appeal before it, be bound by the
procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by the
principles of natural justice, and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and of
any rules made thereunder, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have power
to regulate their own procedure.

(2) The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of
discharging their functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil
court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the
following matters, namely: —

(f) dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex parte;

(g) setting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order
passed by it ex parte …”

A reading of aforesaid sections 420 and 424 suggests that while the procedural requirements
would be followed as prescribed under the IBC and shall have a mandatory and overriding
effect as envisaged in Section 238 of the IBC, the NCLT shall be bound by the provisions of
the Act insofar as the provisions in connection with the duties/ obligations and the manner in
which the NCLT should function, are concerned. The requirement of providing a reasonable
opportunity of being heard has been discussed in an array of decisions rendered by
NCLT/National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in the context of the Code, although in the
matter of non-serving of copy of application filed by the creditor to the debtor.15

Additionally, section 430 of the CA, 2013 specifically bars the jurisdiction of civil courts
from entertaining any suit or proceeding which the NCLT or NCLAT is empowered to
15
Rinita Das, COMPANY LAW, 1st ed. 2021, pp. 320-322.

6
adjudicate upon.16 What this also means is that the NCLT and the NCLAT would be expected
to deal with a dispute before it keeping in mind the same principles of natural justice and
equity as would be binding upon a civil court. The ability of the NCLT to receive evidence
and facilitate examination of witnesses is thus, in light of this, an integral part of its
jurisdiction.17

4. Relevant Case Laws vis-à-vis the Observance of the Principles of Natural Justice

For a clearer and contemporary understanding of the issue-in-hand, the researcher has placed
reliance on the case laws pertaining to the IBC and the CA, 2013. Under Section 7 of the
Code, the provisions regarding the procedure for the initiation of CIRP by a financial creditor
have been laid out. The procedure under the afore-stated section empowers the Adjudicating
Authority i.e., the NCLT with discretionary power to admit or reject an application under
Section 7 of the Code. In this regard, it differs from Section 9 of the Code, under which the
NCLT has to admit or reject the application if the conditions under its sub-clause 5(i) are
satisfied. In case of Section 7 of the Code, the financial creditor is not required to serve any
demand notice upon the corporate debtor, and the financial creditor may straightaway file the
application for initiation of the insolvency proceedings with the NCLT, whereas in case of an
operational creditor, a demand notice is required to be served upon the corporate debtor by
virtue of Section 8 of the Code, to which the corporate debtor is required to reply within ten
days of the receipt of such notice.18

Therefore, unlike Section 9, Section 7 of the Code lacks a provision with regard to the right
to communication/notice or the right to be heard with respect to such proceedings, before the
proceedings under this Code are initiated by the financial creditor. The lack of such a
provision puts the right of corporate debtors to defend themselves before the initiation of the
corporate insolvency resolution process, in grave peril.19

In an application filed under Section 7 of the Code by the financial creditor, ICICI Bank
before the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, in the matter of ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Innoventive Industries

16
Section 430, Companies Act 2013.
17
CS Sikha Bansal and Adv. Richa Saraf, INSOLVENCY CODE: PLIGHTS AND RIGHTS OF
OPERATIONAL CREDITORS, https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Insolvency-Code-
Plights-and-Rights-of-Operational-Creditors.pdf, (Visited on 27 May, 2022).
18
Sections 7, 8 and 9, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
19
Tanya Tekriwal and Shilpi, THE CONUNDRUM BETWEEN PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND
SECTION 7 OF IBC 2016, https://ibclaw.in/the-conundrum-between-principle-of-natural-justice-and-section-7-
of-ibc-2016-by-tanya-tekriwal-and-shilpi/, (Visited on May 26, 2022).

7
Ltd.,20 the NCLT passed an order, dated 17th January 2017, admitting the application and
declaring moratorium. However, in doing so, it also dismissed an application filed by the
corporate debtor for non-service of notice upon the corporate debtor, without giving an
opportunity to be heard. In a subsequent order, dated January 23, 2017, the NCLT clarified
that under the Code the Adjudicating Authority is under no obligation to hear the corporate
debtor, hence, the application could be dismissed without getting into the merits.

The aggrieved party, i.e., the corporate debtor appealed against the said order of the NCLT as
the NCLT admitted the application under Section 7 of the Code without ascribing the
corporate debtor the right to notice and the right to be heard. Consequently, the view of the
NCLT was reversed by the NCLAT in the case of Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank,21
pronounced on May 15, 2017. The appellant claimed violation of the principles of natural
justice. The NCLAT cited a plethora of landmark Supreme Court judgments indicating the
importance of principles of natural justice as a part of “procedure established by law”, from
which the NCLAT observed that the principles of natural justice apply in all cases except
where they are expressly or impliedly excluded, amongst other circumstances given in the
judgement.22

The NCLAT observed that the Code doesn’t have a provision which provides a hearing under
Section 7 of the Code. However, it held that the adjudicating body, being the NCLT, was
bound by Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013, which mandates the NCLT to give
reasonable opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the NCLAT held that it is mandatory for the
adjudicating authority to follow the principles of natural justice, as per section 424 of the
Companies Act, 2013,23 re-produced hereunder:

“As amended Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 is applicable to the proceeding
under the MB Code, 2016, it is mandatory for the adjudicating authority to follow the
Principles of rules of natural justice while passing an order under I&B Code, 2016.
Further, as Section 424 mandates the 'Tribunal' and Appellate Tribunal, to dispose of
cases or/appeal before it subject to other provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 or
MB Code 2016 such as, Section 420 of the Companies Act 2013 was applicable and
to be followed by the Adjudicating Authority.”

20
C.P. No. 01/I & BP/NCLT/MAH 2016.
21
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1 & 2 of 2017.
22
Ibid at Para 42.
23
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1 & 2 of 2017, Para 49.

8
Similarly, in the case of Sree Metaliks Ltd. v. The Union of India,24 the absence of following
the principle of natural justice under Section 7 of the IBC was challenged before the Calcutta
High Court. In this case, the petitioner argued that when a petition is filed under section 7 of
the IBC, the corporate debtor is not provided with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The
Court observed, “Where a statute is silent on the right of hearing and it does not in express
terms, oust the principles of natural justice, the same can and should be read into.” The
Court decided that pursuant to section 424 of the CA, 2013, the Adjudicating Authority is
bound to provide a “reasonable opportunity of hearing” to the corporate debtor when it
receives an application filed under section 7 of the IBC.

Moreover, the Court went a step further and added that the Adjudicating Authority may
proceed to pass an ex-parte ad interim order, however, after recording the reasons for grant of
such an order and why it has chosen not to adhere to the principles of natural justice at that
stage. This observation by the Courts empowers the Adjudicating Authorities to depart from
the fundamental principle of rules of justice under extenuating circumstances. The NCLAT
also held that the purpose of despatching a copy of the application by the financial creditor to
the corporate debtor (under Section 7), as required under clause (3) of rule 4 of the
Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicatory Authority), Rules, 2016, is to give the
corporate debtor adequate notice to bring any “mitigating records” to the notice of the
adjudicating authority.25

Furthermore, in the case of Starlog Enterprises Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd.,26 NCLAT had to
decide whether as per Section 424 of the CA, 2013, the impugned order pronounced by the
NCLT in absence of the notice to the Appellant resulted in the violation of the principles of
rules of natural justice. NCLAT relied on the order passed in Sree Metaliks Ltd. v. The Union
of India,27 declaring that it is a mandatory duty of the ‘adjudicatory authority’ to issue notice
before admitting an application under Section 9 of the Code. The NCLAT observed that the
Adjudicating Authority admitted the application under section 9 of IBC before serving a
notice to the corporate debtor. NCLAT held that the order of NCLT was violative of the
principle of natural justice. The same views have been followed by the NCLAT, New Delhi
Bench, in the case of Kaliber Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Tripat Kaur,28 pronounced on May

24
W.P. 7144 (W) OF 2017.
25
Ibid at Para 51.
26
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 5 of 2017.
27
Supra note 9.
28
Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 52 of 2017.

9
26, 2017. In this case, the Appellant (corporate debtor) appealed against an order admitting
an application under Section 7 of the Code. The NCLAT, while citing the Innoventive
Industries decision,29 held that the order passed was in violation of principles of natural
justice.

5. Conclusion and Suggestions

India currently ranks 47 out of 129 countries for 2020 in the World Bank’s index on the ease
of resolving insolvency.30 It will not be out of place to mention that India’s weak insolvency
regime, delay in carrying out proceedings timely, and systematic abuse are few reasons for
the distressed state of credit markets in India today.

As the Code is gaining prominence, it is pertinent to take steps to ensure that the corporate
resolution process is carried out in a time-bound manner, and to ensure that it maximises the
asset value of the insolvent firms by early identification of the financial failure. The aim of
the Code is not to do injustice to the debtor, rather to formulate a plan—an insolvency
resolution plan, that helps the entity in overcoming its financial stress. To implement the
same, the principles of natural justice definitely play a major role. Passing ex-parte orders or
not giving an opportunity to be heard to the corporate debtor, will neither be beneficial to the
creditor, nor to the Indian judicial system. Insofar as the current scenario is concerned, it is
imperative for the NCLT to adopt a cautious approach while dealing with the matters that
come before it, on the lines of natural justice as emphasized in the Companies Act, 2013. The
NCLT will have to afford the right to be heard to the debtor, even though it is not provided
for expressly in the Code, and failure of compliance with this will be a violation of principles
of natural justice.31

In essence, it should also be ensured, that in the garb of natural justice, the debtor should not
take undue advantage of the time or opportunity granted to it by the adjudicating authority, by
intentionally elongating the time-bound process as prescribed under the Code. Precisely,
despite natural justice in jurisprudence being of paramount importance, what remains the
need of the hour is ensuring the fact that the debtor does not use the same with a mala fide
intention, thereby rendering the entire corporate resolution process, futile.

29
Supra note 6.
30
Ease Of Resolving Insolvency, India Rank, TCdata360, World Bank, https://tcdata360.worldbank.org/
indicators/, (Visited on May 27, 2022).
31
Neha Somani and Utsav Lohia, NATURAL JUSTICE VIS-À-VIS INSOLVENCY BANKRUPTCY CODE,
2016 - AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM: AN UNRAVELLED MYSTERY, https://www.livelaw.in/natural-justice-
vis-vis-insolvency-bankruptcy-code-2016-audi-alteram-partem-unravelled-mystery/, (Visited on May 27, 2022).

10
11
6. Bibliography

A) Articles
- Mr. Siddharth Mohanty, Principle of Natural Justice, Manupatra.
- Neha Somani and Utsav Lohia, “Natural Justice Vis-À-Vis Insolvency Bankruptcy Code,
2016 - Audi Alteram Partem: An Unravelled Mystery”, LiveLaw.

B) Books
- Avtar Singh, COMPANY LAW, 17th ed 2017, EBC, Lucknow.
- Rinita Das, COMPANY LAW, 1st ed. 2021, EBC, Lucknow.
- A Ramaiya, Guide to the Companies Act, 19th ed. 2020, LexisNexis, Gurugram.

C) Websites

- https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Operation-of-Principles-of-Natural-Justice-
in-Civil-Procedure
- https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Insolvency-Code-Plights-and-
Rights-of-Operational-Creditors.pdf
- https://ibclaw.in/the-conundrum-between-principle-of-natural-justice-and-section-7-of-
ibc-2016-by-tanya-tekriwal-and-shilpi/
- https://tcdata360.worldbank.org/ indicators/
- https://www.livelaw.in/natural-justice-vis-vis-insolvency-bankruptcy-code-2016-audi-
alteram-partem-unravelled-mystery/
- https://www.scconline.com/
- https://www.ebcwebstore.com/
- https://advance.lexis.com/
- https://www.airinfotech.in/

iv