Maintainability of appeal in contempt proceedings upheld, with the impugned cash-diversion directions set aside and remanded.

An appellant directly affected by a contempt order requiring it to answer allegations of cash diversion was treated as an aggrieved person, so the maintainability objection failed. The appellate tribunal also held that a direction issuing notice to chartered accountants and proceeding on those allegations could not stand where it was made without proper pleadings or prayer basis in the contempt matter and where similar reliefs were already pending in a separate application. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law, without any expression on the merits of the allegations.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant was an aggrieved person entitled to maintain the appeal against the impugned order passed in contempt proceedings; (ii) whether the Tribunal's direction issuing notice to chartered accountants and proceeding on allegations of cash diversion could be sustained, or the matter required remand for consideration in accordance with law.

Issue (i): whether the appellant was an aggrieved person entitled to maintain the appeal against the impugned order passed in contempt proceedings.

Analysis: The impugned order proceeded on an allegation that the suspended management had diverted cash transactions of a serious nature and required the appellant to answer that allegation. In those circumstances, the appellant was directly affected by the order and could not be treated as a stranger to the proceedings. The objection that the appeal was not maintainable was rejected.

Conclusion: The appeal was held maintainable and the appellant was treated as an aggrieved person.

Issue (ii): whether the Tribunal's direction issuing notice to chartered accountants and proceeding on allegations of cash diversion could be sustained, or the matter required remand for consideration in accordance with law.

Analysis: The Tribunal's order was passed without proper pleadings or prayer basis in the pending contempt matter, while similar allegations and reliefs were already the subject of a separate application before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the impugned order was not allowed to stand and the matter was sent back so that the contempt and the connected application could be dealt with in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration according to law.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge succeeded, the Tribunal's order was annulled, and the proceedings were returned to the Tribunal for reconsideration without any expression on the merits of the allegations.

---