https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784577 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. 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 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. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 05 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784577