Contempt scrutiny before tribunal: show cause notice, service rules, and ex parte proceedings upheld absent natural justice breach.

At the stage of preliminary scrutiny in contempt proceedings, a tribunal empowered under the Companies Act, 2013 may issue a show cause notice, regulate service and appearance under its procedural rules, and record non-appearance ex parte where justified. The Delhi HC held that the writ petitions challenging such threshold orders were not fit for interference because no final finding on guilt, punishment, or cognizance after trial had been taken. Although appellate remedies did not bar writ review, judicial interference was limited to cases of jurisdictional error, arbitrariness, or breach of natural justice, none of which was shown. The tribunal's initiation of contempt scrutiny was therefore within jurisdiction and not vitiated by procedural unfairness.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the National Company Law Tribunal's threshold orders in the contempt proceedings were maintainable, and whether the procedure adopted by the Tribunal violated the principles of natural justice or exceeded its jurisdiction.

Analysis: The controversy arose from contempt proceedings initiated under the contempt power conferred on the Tribunal by the Companies Act, 2013 and governed, in the absence of special rules, by the Tribunal's general procedural powers and its duty to act on the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal had only issued notice to show cause and had not yet taken a final decision on guilt, punishment, or formal cognizance after trial. At that stage, the Court held, the matter remained at threshold scrutiny and the Tribunal was entitled to seek replies, proceed on the basis of service effected through counsel in accordance with its procedural rules, and record non-appearance ex parte where warranted. The Court also held that the availability of appellate remedies did not bar writ scrutiny, but judicial review would not be exercised in the absence of jurisdictional error, arbitrariness, or breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained on merits and the challenge to the Tribunal's procedural orders failed; the Tribunal's initiation of contempt scrutiny was held to be within jurisdiction and not vitiated by breach of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of preliminary scrutiny in contempt proceedings, a tribunal empowered to punish for contempt may issue a show cause notice and regulate service and appearance in accordance with its procedural rules, and writ interference is unwarranted unless there is clear jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice.

---