Dismissal of Contempt Petitions under Companies Act - Consent Terms Not Enforceable

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the contempt petitions under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013, as the consent terms did not amount to an undertaking enforceable through contempt proceedings. The Tribunal clarified that execution of compromise decree should be pursued through legal channels rather than contempt petitions. The Tribunal emphasized that no contempt case was established against the Respondents, leading to the dismissal of the petitions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Contempt petitions under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013.
2. Alleged willful breach of undertaking given by the Contemnors.
3. Validity and enforceability of consent terms.
4. Execution of compromise decree.
5. Jurisdiction and authority of the Appellate Tribunal.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Contempt Petitions under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013:
The Petitioners preferred contempt petitions under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking initiation of proceedings for contempt due to the alleged disobedience of the Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 29th June, 2018. The contempt petitions were filed on the grounds that the Respondents had willfully breached the undertaking given to the Tribunal.

2. Alleged Willful Breach of Undertaking Given by the Contemnors:
The Petitioners alleged that the Respondents had flouted the undertaking given before the Tribunal on 29th May, 2018, which amounted to a violation of the Tribunal’s order. The Petitioners contended that the Respondents failed to pay the agreed amount and provide the Bank Guarantee as per the consent terms, leading to the contempt petitions.

3. Validity and Enforceability of Consent Terms:
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn on 29th May, 2018, as the parties reached a ‘Terms of Settlement’. The consent terms were recorded and treated as final on 29th June, 2018. However, the Tribunal did not issue any specific directions or record any undertakings from the parties. The Tribunal emphasized that the consent terms, if not honored, could be a ground for execution of a compromise decree but not for initiating contempt proceedings.

4. Execution of Compromise Decree:
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in "Babu Ram Gupta vs. Sudhir Bhasin and another" (1980) 3 SCC 47, which held that non-compliance with a compromise decree does not amount to contempt of court unless there is an express undertaking given to the court. The Tribunal observed that the Petitioners should seek execution of the consent terms through appropriate legal channels rather than filing contempt petitions.

5. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Appellate Tribunal:
The Tribunal clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the case and allowed the appeal to be withdrawn based on the consent terms agreed upon by the parties. The Tribunal did not record any undertaking or issue any directions that could be enforced through contempt proceedings. The Tribunal dismissed the contempt petitions, stating that no case was made out for initiating contempt proceedings against the Respondents.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the contempt petitions were not maintainable as the consent terms did not constitute an undertaking given to the court, nor were there any directions issued by the Tribunal that could be enforced through contempt proceedings. The Tribunal dismissed both contempt petitions, emphasizing that the Petitioners should seek execution of the consent terms through appropriate legal channels.

---