2019 (7) TMI 580 - Tri - Companies Law

Tribunal grants restoration applications, orders costs to respondents, emphasizes fair hearing, lists for compliance.

The Tribunal allowed the restoration applications, requiring the applicant to pay costs to the respondents. It emphasized addressing the contempt of court ... Maintainability of petition - Restoration of the applications - Case of petitioner is that petitioner could not able to remain present in the Court on account of marriage in his family, hence, he sent a letter for adjournment - HELD THAT:- The applicant has not produced sufficient proof nor shown convincing reasons for his non-appearance or the absence of his authorized representative on the due date of hearing before this Court. He did not furnish proof of his illness by producing a medical certificate along with the present applications nor his authorized representative filed any supporting affidavit by explaining that why he could not able to appear before this Bench on the due date of hearing nor he sought for adjournment by requesting some other proxy counsel or representative - Hence, the reasons shown for restoration are not adequate for want of necessary proof. It is well settled legal position in catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts that if there is allegation of breach of Court’s order/direction and there is prima-facie evidence for alleged breach of order, then the matter becomes a matter between the court and alleged contemnor and the status of the applicant can only be of complainant/informer - in order to meet the ends of justice, it is expedient to consider the above stated Miscellaneous Application and Contempt Application on its merits and to be disposed in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Therefore, the inconvenience caused, if any, to the respondents can be compensated by appropriate cost. Applications allowed. Issues: Restoration of applications dismissed for want of prosecution, compliance with court directions, contempt of court, procedural lapses in filing affidavits.Restoration of Applications Dismissed for Want of Prosecution:The applicant sought restoration of M.A. No. 5/NCLT/AHM/2017 and Contempt Application No.6/NCLT/AHM/2017, which were dismissed for want of prosecution. The applicant cited reasons for non-appearance, including illness and family commitments. However, the respondents opposed the restoration, alleging improper filing and lack of verified information in the applications. The Tribunal examined the submissions and found the applicant failed to provide sufficient proof for non-appearance or the absence of a representative on the hearing date, leading to the dismissal of the applications. Despite this, the Tribunal decided to consider the matter for substantial justice based on the available record.Compliance with Court Directions and Contempt of Court:The Tribunal noted that in a previous order, it had observed the respondents' failure to comply with directions issued by the coordinated Bench (CLB), leading to a finding of contempt of court. The Tribunal held that the respondents were at fault for not obeying the directions, as established by the CLB's verdict on allegations of oppression and mismanagement. The Tribunal emphasized that if there is prima facie evidence of breaching court orders, the matter becomes a concern between the court and the alleged contemnor. It was decided to address the issue of contempt of court on its merits rather than rejecting it based on procedural lapses, ensuring both parties have an opportunity to be heard.Procedural Lapses in Filing Affidavits:The respondents contended that the restoration applications were not properly filed as per guidelines set by the High Court, lacked verification, and did not specify the forum of the case. The Tribunal acknowledged these procedural lapses but emphasized the need to focus on the substantial justice of the case. Despite the deficiencies in the filing of the applications, the Tribunal decided to allow the applications conditionally, requiring the applicant to pay a specified cost to the respondents within a set timeframe. Upon proof of payment, the original applications were to be restored for further hearing.Conclusion:In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the restoration applications with a condition of payment of costs, emphasizing the need to address the contempt of court issue on its merits and afford both parties a fair hearing. The matter was scheduled for further listing to ensure compliance with the Tribunal's directions.