Breach of consent terms in insolvency case: contempt must be filed before issuing tribunal u/s 425; petition dismissed

The dominant issue was whether the HC could entertain a contempt petition alleging breach of consent terms recorded by the NCLT in IBC proceedings, or whether contempt jurisdiction lay exclusively with the Tribunal. The HC held that contempt power is extraordinary and must be expressly sourced in law; Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 confers plenary, self-contained contempt jurisdiction on the NCLT/NCLAT over contempt of their own orders across all proceedings, including under the IBC, and parallel exercise by the HC under the Contempt of Courts Act would improperly bypass the statutorily empowered forum. Any oversight could lie only under Articles 226/227, not via contempt. The contempt petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1) Whether a contempt petition is maintainable before the High Court to punish alleged non-compliance with consent terms recorded and made part of an order passed by the NCLT while exercising jurisdiction under the IBC, or whether contempt jurisdiction vests with the NCLT/NCLAT.

2) Whether Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 confers contempt jurisdiction on the NCLT/NCLAT in respect of orders passed in proceedings under the IBC, notwithstanding that the IBC does not expressly provide for contempt powers.

3) Whether, once the NCLT/NCLAT have statutory contempt jurisdiction over their own orders, the High Court should refrain from exercising "parallel" contempt jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for alleged breach of such NCLT orders; and whether supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 can be invoked through a contempt petition.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Maintainability of a High Court contempt petition for alleged breach of an NCLT order passed under the IBC

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court examined the nature of contempt jurisdiction as "extraordinary, penal and coercive," requiring a clear constitutional or statutory source. It considered the statutory scheme governing the NCLT's powers, particularly Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013, and distinguished contempt jurisdiction from supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated maintainability as a threshold question and held that where a statute vests contempt jurisdiction in the Tribunal over contempt "of themselves," parties should not directly invoke the High Court's contempt jurisdiction as a parallel forum. The Court emphasised that permitting direct High Court contempt petitions would enable bypassing the forum expressly empowered by statute to punish contempt of its own orders. The Court further clarified that any High Court intervention, if required, lies in supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, which is distinct from contempt jurisdiction and cannot be triggered by filing a contempt petition.

Conclusion: The contempt petition in the High Court was held not maintainable and was dismissed at the threshold.

Issue 2: Whether the NCLT/NCLAT have contempt jurisdiction over orders passed under the IBC by virtue of Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court relied on Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013, which confers on the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of themselves as the High Court, to be exercised using the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (with specified modifications). The Court also referred to Section 408 (constitution and mandate of the NCLT to exercise powers under the Companies Act "or any other law"), Section 60(5) of the IBC (wide jurisdiction in insolvency-related matters), and Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 (inherent powers).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court rejected the argument that contempt powers under Section 425 are confined only to proceedings under the Companies Act. It held that Section 425 makes no distinction based on the source statute under which the NCLT is exercising jurisdiction, and reading such a limitation would amount to impermissibly adding words to the statute. The Court reasoned that the NCLT is a single adjudicatory institution constituted under the Companies Act and designated under the IBC as the adjudicating authority for insolvency matters; it cannot be attributed a "split or fragmented personality" with contempt power under one statute and none under another. The Court considered that denying contempt powers in IBC matters would undermine enforceability of NCLT orders and frustrate the effectiveness of the insolvency framework.

Conclusion: The Court conclusively held that the NCLT and the NCLAT have independent and effective jurisdiction to punish for contempt of their own orders, including orders passed while exercising jurisdiction under the IBC.

Issue 3: Whether the High Court should exercise "parallel" contempt jurisdiction and whether contempt can be used as a tool for enforcement of consent terms

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court considered the existence of statutory contempt jurisdiction in the NCLT/NCLAT under Section 425 and the distinct character of High Court supervisory powers under Articles 226 and 227. It also addressed the proper scope of contempt proceedings.

Interpretation and reasoning: Having found that contempt jurisdiction is vested in the Tribunal, the Court held that it "ought not" to exercise parallel contempt jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in relation to alleged non-compliance with NCLT orders, because doing so would permit bypassing the statutorily empowered forum. Separately, the Court clarified that contempt proceedings are not a substitute for execution/enforcement mechanisms or for resolving disputes arising from consent terms where compliance may depend on disputed facts or interpretation; in such situations, contempt jurisdiction "may not be appropriate." Finally, the Court held that if any High Court intervention is necessary, it can only be through Articles 226/227, but such supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked by filing a contempt petition.

Conclusion: The High Court declined to exercise parallel contempt jurisdiction and dismissed the contempt petition as not maintainable, leaving the petitioner at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

---