https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77594 The CLB, under Section 10E of the Companies Act, 1956, was found to lack the power to punish for contempt of its order. - The power to punish for contempt of the CLB's order was discussed in relation to Section 425 of the Act, which does not grant the CLB such authority. - The jurisdiction of the CLB to issue contempt notice was analyzed based on Section 434(1)(a) of the Act, which transfers pending matters to the Tribunal. - The doctrine of merger was applied, stating that the CLB's order had merged with the Guwahati High Court's order due to subsequent appeals. - The directors' appeal was allowed, with the Tribunal noting their lack of control over the Company's affairs but holding them bound by the order until payment to 3A Capital is made. en-us Tue, 21 May 2024 08:20:31 +0530 Tue, 21 May 2024 08:20:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77594 The CLB, under Section 10E of the Companies Act, 1956, was found to lack the power to punish for contempt of its order. - The power to punish for contempt of the CLB's order was discussed in relation to Section 425 of the Act, which does not grant the CLB such authority. - The jurisdiction of the CLB to issue contempt notice was analyzed based on Section 434(1)(a) of the Act, which transfers pending matters to the Tribunal. - The doctrine of merger was applied, stating that the CLB's order had merged with the Guwahati High Court's order due to subsequent appeals. - The directors' appeal was allowed, with the Tribunal noting their lack of control over the Company's affairs but holding them bound by the order until payment to 3A Capital is made. Highlights Companies Law Tue, 21 May 2024 08:20:31 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77594