TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....seeking direction against the respondent no. 1 to comply the status quo order passed by this Tribunal. 2. Brief facts are that after passing the impugned order, on 03.07.2017 the Respondent issue a letter to MSC Share Transfer Agent Limited directing it to transfer immediately the equity shares of the NMCE held by the Appellant who again on 07.07.2017 again wrote to MCS Share Transfer Agent Limited directing it to transfer the equity shares of the Complainant held by the Appellant. 3. In its reply dated 09.10.2017 NMCE wrote to the Appellant informing it that its Share Certificate of 19,74,900 equity shares had been split up into four certificates and three of the certificates had been delivered to the Respondent. These three certificates which constituted 12,96,900 equity shares being the subject matter of the connected Appeal No. 615 of 2014. The Appellant was also informed that the transfer of the equity shares held by them in the Demat form (which is subject matter of the present appeal) was under process. The Appellants on 16th October, 2017 filed an application being MA 3939 of 2017 before this Tribunal seeking interim protection against the letters issued by the Respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the Respondents. 10. The Appellants on 29.12.2017 wrote to HDFC Bank reiterating their request for the transfer of the equity shares back to their Demat Account. 11. On 5th January, 2018, the Appellants filed an Application for Contempt and appropriate directions being 4192 of 2018 before the Tribunal seeking inter alia a direction against Respondent to transfer the equity shares back to them. 12. This Tribunal on 08.01.2018 issued notice on the Application for Contempt and appropriate directions filed by the Appellants. The Respondent was directed to file its Reply. The proceedings were directed to be listed for 23.01.2018. 13. The respondent served a copy of its reply to the application for Contempt filed by the Appellants on 19.01.2018. In the reply the Respondent took the stand that it was a "mere coincidence that on the date of the pronouncement of order ... the shares were transferred by the baking authorities." In the reply took a categorical stand that that the shares had been transferred at 3:06 pm in the afternoon. 14. Despite having already filed its Reply, during the proceedings before this Tribunal on 23.01.2018 the Respondent sought further time a file an add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent has issued the notice under Section8(4). The matter is already coming up for final disposal on 8th January, 2018. The notice under Section 8(4) has been issued after the expiry of about three years and once the appeal is set up for hearing. Under these circumstances the status quo shall be maintained by both the parties in respect of attached property." 20. There is no denial that both the HDFC Bank and the Respondents were aware of the listing of the Application on 28.11.2017. No transfer of the shares had been effected till the morning of 28.11.2017. After the passing of the order dated 28.11.2017, the same was duly communicated by email to the HDFC Bank and NSDL by the Appellants within hours of the passing of the Order. The said order had been passed in the presence of the counsel for the Respondent. The matter has been re-heard after the retirement of the member and part of the bench when the interim order was passed. 21. Counsel for the Respondent submits that there is no fault of the respondent. It might be a matter of co-incident that once the order is passed on 28.11.2017 on the same afternoon shares were transfer. The said transfer might be in routine manner. Ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 23. In case of Century Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. Suppiah, passed by the Hon‟ble Madras High Court on 11.03.1975. It was observed that where in violation of a stay order or injunction against a party, something has been done in dis-obedience, it will be the duty of the court as a policy to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. The inherent power is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interests of justice. As a matter of judicial policy, the court should guard itself against being stultified in circumstances like this by holding that it is powerless to undo a wrong done in disobedience of the courts orders. 24. Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has held if the orders are allowed to violate then the tendency to flout orders of Courts which is increasing day by day can never be curbed. The court exercises its powers on the foundation of respect and regard for its authority by litigating public. People would lose faith and respect completely if the Court does not curb and prevent this tendency. In the case of Keshrimal Jivji Vs. Bank of Maharashtra & Ors. [2004 (3) MH.L.J.] at para 26 passed by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court on 22.04.2004. 2....