TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Respondent Fails to Comply with Court Orders, Faces Contempt Petition</h1> <h3>AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZELAND BANKING GROUP LTD. Versus TULIP TELECOM LTD.</h3> The High Court found the Respondent failed to comply with court orders by not filing a reply in a contempt petition. Despite requests for more time and ... - Issues involved: Contempt petition for non-compliance with court orders, appointment of provisional liquidator, failure to file reply, request for more time, offer of security, corporate debt restructuring scheme, costs imposed on respondent.The High Court found that the Respondent failed to file a reply in a contempt petition despite being given an opportunity, leading to a request from the Respondent's counsel for more time to respond. The Court inquired about the willingness of the Respondent to offer unencumbered fixed assets as security due to an outstanding amount of over Rs. 32 crores owed to the Petitioner, but the Respondent's counsel was unable to confirm the status of the assets offered. The original order from November 2012 allowed the Petitioner to take action under contempt law in case of default, including the appointment of a provisional liquidator.The Respondent's counsel requested a delay in appointing the provisional liquidator, citing a corporate debt restructuring (CDR) scheme with secured creditors, which did not address the liability to the Petitioner. Despite this, the Court found no valid reason for the Respondent's failure to file a reply to the contempt petition. The Respondent had not sought clarification or modification of the previous order as allowed by a Division Bench order from January 2013, further weakening their position.Given the lack of progress and the need for adjournment, the Court decided not to grant further indulgence to the Respondent. As a result, the Respondent was directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the Petitioner by the next date, with the Managing Director instructed to appear in court on the following date. The case was listed for the next hearing on 22nd April 2013 at 10:30 am, with orders to be provided promptly to the counsels of both parties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
