Respondent Fails to Comply with Court Orders, Faces Contempt Petition

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 offering security, the Respondent's counsel could not confirm the status of assets offered as security for the outstanding debt. The Court noted the Respondent's failure to seek clarification or modification of previous orders, leading to a decision not to grant further indulgence. The Respondent was directed to pay costs to the Petitioner and the Managing Director was instructed to appear in court. The case was scheduled for the next hearing on 22nd April 2013.

---

---

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.

---