NCLAT Upholds NCLT's Modified Order on Bhagyodayam Probe
October 14, 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has dismissed an appeal challenging a modified order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to appoint an inspector to investigate Bhagyodayam. The appeal argued that the modification was unlawful. However, NCLAT ruled the change merely alters the appointing agency without affecting rights.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has dismissed an appeal against a modified order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) involving the investigation into the affairs of Bhagyodayam, a company based in Kerala.
On January 3, 2024, the Kochi bench of NCLT revised its earlier directive from March 2020, replacing the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) with an inspector appointed by the central government to probe the matter. The modification faced a legal challenge from Paul Jospeh, who argued it contradicted the Principles of Natural Justice, saying it was effectively a review without prior notice.
NCLAT, however, affirmed the modified order, stating the change of investigative agency does not impact the rights of the appellant. Despite challenges, including a writ in the Kerala High Court, NCLAT concluded the investigation process should proceed, emphasizing it's merely procedural and necessary to conclude the allegations under scrutiny.
(With inputs from agencies.)
On January 3, 2024, the Kochi bench of NCLT revised its earlier directive from March 2020, replacing the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) with an inspector appointed by the central government to probe the matter. The modification faced a legal challenge from Paul Jospeh, who argued it contradicted the Principles of Natural Justice, saying it was effectively a review without prior notice.
NCLAT, however, affirmed the modified order, stating the change of investigative agency does not impact the rights of the appellant. Despite challenges, including a writ in the Kerala High Court, NCLAT concluded the investigation process should proceed, emphasizing it's merely procedural and necessary to conclude the allegations under scrutiny.
(With inputs from agencies.)