2025 (6) TMI 860

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Aishani Das & Ms. Niranjana Pandian, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. E. Om Prakash, Senior Advocate For Mr. Ravikiran Singh & Ms. R. Moneshaa, Advocates, For R1 & R3 Ms. Anuradha Bisani, Liquidator for R2 JUDGMENT ( Hybrid Mode ) [ Per : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member ( Judicial ) ] Contempt Application No. 5 / 2024 Contempt Application No. 5/2024, has been preferred in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 211/2024. The Appellant has contended that, the Respondents, as impleaded in the contempt petition, are required to be summoned by this Appellate Tribunal, in the exercise of its powers under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013, to be punished for their willful disobedience of the order dated 24.06.2024, which was pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o. 5/2024, had been apparently denied by the reply filed by the Respondents to the Contempt Application. In para (g) and (h), of the said reply of particular relevance would be the reply given in para (h) wherein the Respondents extend the reply to the contents of para 3(u) (v) of the contempt application. On a perusal of the replies extended by the Respondents, in fact, no case as such appears to have been made out which will amount to intentional contempt, owing to the fact, that the directions as given in para 36 & 37 of the impugned order dated 28.05.2024, there was no such directions given as such with regards to the reconstitution of the board, the contempt of which is alleged in Contempt Application No. 5/2024, except for the observa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....im order, which was granted by this Appellate Tribunal on 24.06.2024 has been flouted. Thus contempt, if any, cannot be specifically determined at this stage, except after a detailed scrutiny of the rival contentions, which is the subject matter of the company appeal itself, owing to the reply submitted in para (g) and (h) by the Respondent. Since the contempt application doesn't satisfy any element to establish the fact that the Respondent had intentionally engaged in violation of para 38(4) of the order of 28.05.2024, which has been stayed by this Appellate Tribunal, no deliberate or intentional contempt could be said to have been made out by the Respondent based on the pleadings to the contempt application, for which the contempt cou....