Appellate Tribunal dismisses Contempt Case, clarifies decision. Shareholder disputes pending further litigation.

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed Contempt Case No. 13 of 2023, ruling that the Contemnors did not willfully breach its orders. The Tribunal clarified that this decision pertained solely to the contempt case and did not address the merits of the main appeal CA (AT) No. 65 of 2019, which would be addressed separately. The disputes between shareholders of CKC & Sons and CKC & Co. regarding alleged breaches, competing businesses, and the validity of the Family Settlement Agreement remain unresolved pending further litigation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged willful breach of orders by the Contemnors.
2. Disputes between shareholders of CKC & Sons and CKC & Co.
3. Allegations of starting a competing business and other actions by the Contemnors.
4. Interpretation and application of previous orders by the Appellate Tribunal.
5. Validity and impact of Family Settlement Agreement (FSA).

Summary:

1. Alleged Willful Breach of Orders:
The Complainants filed Contempt Case (AT) No. 13 of 2023 alleging willful breach of the Appellate Tribunal's orders dated 08.07.2021, 25.11.2021, and 24.02.2022 by the Contemnors. They argued that these orders contained directions to both parties not to precipitate the matter and not to take any coercive actions. The Complainants alleged that the Contemnors violated these orders by starting a competing business and taking other actions that jeopardized CKC & Sons.

2. Disputes Between Shareholders:
The Complainants and Contemnors are 50% shareholders in CKC & Sons Pvt. Ltd. and belong to different branches of the same family. The disputes between them have been ongoing for years, involving various legal fora. The Complainants argued that the Contemnors have been trying to benefit from the trade mark and goodwill of CKC & Sons by starting a competing business under a similar name.

3. Allegations of Competing Business and Other Actions:
The Complainants alleged that the Contemnors have taken several actions to harm the business of CKC & Sons, including:
- Sending threatening emails to employees.
- Poaching clients.
- Threatening security personnel.
- Using CKC & Sons' address for tax invoices.
- Using social media to promote a competing business.
- Advertising vacancies for the competing business.
- Claiming their company CKC & Co. to be legal and running since 1982.

4. Interpretation and Application of Previous Orders:
The Appellate Tribunal examined the three orders in question to determine if there was any specific and clear direction that was violated. The Tribunal found that the orders were general in nature and did not contain specific directions regarding the non-operation of existing business or opening new stores. The Tribunal concluded that there was no willful disobedience of its orders by the Contemnors.

5. Validity and Impact of Family Settlement Agreement (FSA):
The Complainants refuted the validity of the FSA, arguing that it was not a binding agreement. The Contemnors, on the other hand, argued that the FSA allowed them to start a new store/business and use the name "C. Krishniah Chetty & Co." The Tribunal noted that the FSA was a significant point of dispute and that its validity would be determined in the main appeal and other pending litigations.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Contempt Case No. 13 of 2023, finding no willful disobedience of its orders by the Contemnors. The Tribunal emphasized that the findings were limited to the contempt case and did not express any opinion on the merits of the main appeal CA (AT) No. 65 of 2019, which would be dealt with separately.

---