Wilful disregard of superior court directions leads to censure, costs, and setting aside of the impugned tribunal judgment.

A judicial or quasi-judicial body must comply with an express superior court direction once it has been apprised of it; a judgment pronounced in wilful disregard of that direction cannot stand. The technical member's unconditional apology was accepted, the judicial member's explanation was censured as contrary to the record, and costs were imposed on the scrutiniser and the concerned private respondent for acting in concert to delay the AGM result. The impugned appellate judgment was set aside and the underlying appeal was remitted for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted bench, with no determination on the merits of the corporate dispute.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellate tribunal acted in wilful defiance of the Supreme Court's order by pronouncing judgment despite being apprised of the earlier direction; (ii) whether the conduct of the judicial member, the technical member, and the scrutiniser warranted contempt consequences and what relief should follow; (iii) whether the pronouncement delivered in breach of the Supreme Court's direction should stand and whether the underlying appeal should be reheard.

Issue (i): whether the appellate tribunal acted in wilful defiance of the Supreme Court's order by pronouncing judgment despite being apprised of the earlier direction.

Analysis: The record, including the transcript and CCTV footage, showed that the Bench was informed of the Supreme Court's morning order and of the direction that judgment should be delivered only after the AGM result was declared. The Bench nevertheless proceeded to pronounce judgment. The later explanation that the order was not formally placed on record did not answer the fact that the direction had been conveyed and understood.

Conclusion: The tribunal acted in wilful defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

Issue (ii): whether the conduct of the judicial member, the technical member, and the scrutiniser warranted contempt consequences and what relief should follow.

Analysis: The technical member tendered an unconditional apology, which was accepted. The judicial member's explanation was found to be contrary to the record and the conduct was censured. The scrutiniser was found to have acted in concert with the concerned private respondent to delay declaration of the AGM result, contrary to the Supreme Court's earlier direction, and monetary costs were imposed on both.

Conclusion: The technical member's apology was accepted, the judicial member was censured, and costs were imposed on the scrutiniser and the concerned private respondent.

Issue (iii): whether the pronouncement delivered in breach of the Supreme Court's direction should stand and whether the underlying appeal should be reheard.

Analysis: Since the appellate tribunal delivered judgment in disregard of the Supreme Court's direction, the impugned judgment could not be sustained. The Supreme Court exercised its constitutional power to preserve the dignity of its process and directed that the appeal be heard afresh by a Bench presided over by the Chairperson of the appellate tribunal.

Conclusion: The judgment was set aside and the appeal was directed to be reheard afresh.

Final Conclusion: The contempt proceedings were brought to an end with censure and costs, while the impugned appellate judgment was annulled and the matter was remitted for fresh hearing without any determination on the merits of the corporate dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: A judicial or quasi-judicial body must comply with an express superior court direction once apprised of it, and a judgment delivered in wilful disregard of that direction cannot be sustained.

---