Appeal dismissed for contempt, chance to purge contempt by deposit, fine imposed, warned of share forfeiture. Rectification request denied.

The appeal was dismissed by the NCLT for contempt of court, with the appellant given the opportunity to purge the contempt by depositing a specified amount within four weeks. The NCLT also imposed a fine and warned of share forfeiture for non-compliance. The appellant's request for rectification of the order was denied as it was based on counsel's consent, which could not be challenged without proper application. The appeal was deemed non-maintainable due to res judicata and the consent order, emphasizing the need for compliance with the original directive.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Contempt of Court
2. Rectification of Order
3. Consent and Authorization of Counsel
4. Res Judicata and Appeal Barred by Consent Order

Summary:

Contempt of Court:
The appellant was found guilty by the NCLT in Contempt Petition No.8/2022 for disobeying an order dated 30.09.2022. The NCLT provided an opportunity to purge the contempt by depositing Rs.3,94,99,355/- within four weeks and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Failure to deposit would result in the forfeiture of shares held by the contemnor in the applicant company.

Rectification of Order:
The appellant filed CA No.19/2023 seeking rectification of the order dated 30.09.2022, specifically requesting the deletion of a line in para 42. The NCLT dismissed the rectification application, stating that the order was a result of a consent given by the appellant's counsel.

Consent and Authorization of Counsel:
The appellant argued that the counsel's consent to the order was unauthorized. The counsel for the appellant claimed that no such consent was given and immediately disputed it via email. However, the NCLT and the Appellate Tribunal found that the counsel's consent, even if unauthorized, could not be questioned without proper application before the NCLT.

Res Judicata and Appeal Barred by Consent Order:
The appeal was argued to be barred by the principle of res judicata as the same issues were previously addressed and dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) No.198/2022. The Tribunal emphasized that a consent order is not appealable under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013. The appellant's subsequent rectification petition was found to be an attempt to delay compliance with the original order.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed on grounds of being non-maintainable due to the consent order and the principle of res judicata. The appellant's actions were deemed to lack clean hands, and the Tribunal upheld the NCLT's orders, emphasizing the need for compliance with the original directive to deposit the specified amount.

---