https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784577 Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as the source of contempt power for the NCLT and NCLAT, and read with Sections 408 and 424(3), Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, the statutory scheme was held to give the Tribunal effective authority over matters before it, including insolvency proceedings. On that basis, the High Court's parallel contempt jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was unavailable where the Tribunal itself had been vested with contempt powers. The Court also noted that contempt cannot be used as a substitute for execution or for resolving disputed issues arising from consent terms. The contempt petition was dismissed as not maintainable before the High Court. en-us Mon, 05 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784577 Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as the source of contempt power for the NCLT and NCLAT, and read with Sections 408 and 424(3), Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, the statutory scheme was held to give the Tribunal effective authority over matters before it, including insolvency proceedings. On that basis, the High Court's parallel contempt jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was unavailable where the Tribunal itself had been vested with contempt powers. The Court also noted that contempt cannot be used as a substitute for execution or for resolving disputed issues arising from consent terms. The contempt petition was dismissed as not maintainable before the High Court. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 05 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784577