Order passed without notice to necessary parties violating principles of natural justice must be set aside.

Pushp Ratna Realty Pvt. Ltd. filed W.P. No. 19362/2026 under Article 226 seeking quashment of multiple pending civil suits, complaints, and proceedings against it — including matters pending before the Civil Judge, Commercial Court, Sub-Divisional Officer, and this Court — claiming protection under Sections 31(5), 31(6), 32A read with Sections 231 and 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC"), pursuant to the NCLT Indore's order dated 09.03.2026 approving a resolution plan.

The writ Court disposed of the petition on 27/05/2026, the very day it was listed during vacation, without issuing notice to the respondents (the present appellants/review petitioner), directing inter alia that the concerned Courts/Authorities first decide maintainability in light of the IBC "and the observations made herein above," granting liberty to seek vacation of adverse interim orders, and clarifying that no opinion on merits was expressed.

Review petitioner Kamal Nayan Mishra's W.A. No. 1991/2026 was disposed of on 22/06/2026, recording a "no objection" from his counsel regarding the aforesaid directions.

1. Whether the writ Court's order dated 27/05/2026 in W.P. No. 19362/2026, passed during vacation on the same day of listing without issuing notice to the respondents/affected parties, violates the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashment of pending civil court proceedings can be disposed of, with directions touching maintainability, without hearing the parties arrayed in those civil proceedings.

3. Whether the appellate order dated 22/06/2026 in W.A. No. 1991/2026, recording the review petitioner's "no objection" to the writ Court's directions, was correctly passed in the absence of his actual consent.

The Court primarily applied the principles of natural justice, specifically the maxim audi alteram partem, holding that parties likely to be affected by a judicial order must be issued notice and afforded an opportunity of hearing before any order or observations adverse to their interests are made; orders passed in breach thereof "cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law".

The IBC, 2016 — Sections 31(5), 31(6), 32A, 231 and 238 — formed the substantive backdrop of the writ petitioner's claim for immunity from pending proceedings following approval of its resolution plan.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India was relevant to the question of maintainability of the writ petition directed against pending civil proceedings.

The Court reasoned that the relief sought in the writ petition was nothing short of quashment of pending civil court proceedings, and therefore the appellants — who were plaintiffs/opposite parties in those proceedings — were directly affected necessary parties.

Upon perusing the record, the Court found that the writ Court had decided the petition on the same day it was listed during vacation, without issuing any notice whatsoever to the respondents therein.

The appellants' objection was not illusory: para 23(i) of the writ Court's order directed the authorities to decide maintainability "in accordance with law and the observations made herein above," meaning the order carried observations capable of influencing the subordinate forums to the appellants' prejudice, making prior hearing imperative.

Applying the rule of audi alteram partem to these facts, the Court held that the appellants and the review petitioner "ought to have been heard before passing the order and making the observations made therein," and accordingly the impugned orders — including the appellate order of 22/06/2026 founded on a disputed recording of consent — could not be sustained.

W.P. No. 19362/2026 was restored to its original number and the matter remanded to the writ Court, to be listed on 05/08/2026, on which date the appellants/review petitioner shall appear, file their Vakalatnama and objections to facilitate early disposal of the writ petition; no opinion was expressed on the merits of the IBC protections claimed.