An order or judgment: A subtle but serious distinction

Unnecessary theorizing on jurisprudence can complicate simple matters and cause legal confusion

- RAJASEKHAR V.K.

The recent pronouncement of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, in All About Health India Pvt Ltd and Others is instructive—not so much for its outcome, but for how it was framed. Although styled with citations from the Supreme Court, references to constitutional expectations from tribunals and an extended discourse on the Issue, Rule, Analysis and Conclusion (IRAC) method of dissecting legal issues as well as ratio decidendi (the underlying principle of a reason-based decision), the document is not a judgment. It is a procedural order under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, allowing stakeholder meetings to be dispensed with for an uncontested amalgamation between wholly owned subsidiaries.

There was no adjudication. No objections were raised. Yet, there was a 36-paragraph exposition on doctrinal themes, judicial formatting and the philosophy of adjudication. A simple procedural matter became an occasion for judicial theorizing. The structure of the order created the impression of adjudication where none existed.

Confusing judgments with orders isn't just about wording—it affects how justice is delivered. A judgment resolves contested rights, backed by structured reasoning and legal finality. An order, especially in procedural contexts, directs statutory compliance, often without adjudication. An order is meant to be a functional instrument of disposition. Blurring this line compromises institutional efficiency.