TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1824
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that, the appellants who are three in number had initiated a proceedings under Section 108 of the Companies Act of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, "Act of 1956") which was initially numbered as Suit No.365 of 2012 and upon its transfer, got renumbered as T.P.No.301 of 2017 Shri Shakti Bhushan & others Vs. M/s. Titan Industries Ltd. & Another. In the aforesaid proceedings of Suit No.365 of 2012 as carried under the Companies Act of 1956, the Appellant had prayed for a grant of a decree of permanent injunction, in favour of the Plaintiff/Appellants, as against the Respondent/Defendant, thereby restraining them from transferring 400 shares bearing Registration Folio No.TW/P0026051 and New Certificate No.13430 Dist. No.30480961-30488960. Besides, the above, the Appellants also sought a Decree in the nature of Mandatory Injunction as against the Respondent, seeking a direction to register the name of the appellant/petitioner in the records of the Respondent No.1 Company as the owner of 400 shares, the particulars of which have been herein above. Another relief, which was sought for in the same petition, being Suit No.365 of 2012 by the Plaintiff / Appellant was that, the defendant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taken up before the Learned Adjudicating Authority and the Learned Adjudicating Authority by an order dated 30.08.2019, after observing that the contempt petition was filed on 09.05.2019 and that after its filing the Registry has pointed out certain defects and they were granted time to remove the defects, which was not complied with, got the Contempt Petition listed for hearing on 28.08.2019. Consequently, citing non-compliance of the objections raised by the Registry of the NCLT on 10.06.2019, coupled with non-compliance of the email communication dated 14.06.2019, resulting into non-rectification of the defects as pointed out by the Registry, and citing non-appearance of the Applicant where the Contempt Petition was taken up on 30.08.2019, the NCLT dismissed the Contempt Petition, for want of prosecution. Seeking recall of this order dated 30.08.2019, the Appellant on 11.12.2020 filed an application for Restoration of Contempt Petition, praying thereby for recall of the order dated 30.08.2019 and to restore the Contempt Petition being Contempt Petition No.154/BB/2019, to its original number. The consequential relief, which was sought in the application for Restoration, was t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y pursue the Contempt Petition No. 154/BB/2019. In addition he had submitted that, it took him a long time to comply with the office objections and to collate the records, within the time and as such the inability to pursue the Contempt Petition diligently was on genuine reasons and therefore the Restoration Application, may be allowed. The provisions of drawing of Contempt Proceedings under Companies Act, 1956 was contained under Section 10G and under the Companies Act of 2013, it is contained under Section 425. The Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 contemplates that the proceedings of the Contempt, could be drawn and carried in accordance with the provisions contained under the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971. Almost akin provisions were contemplated under the Companies Act of 1956, which too provided that the Contempt Proceedings will be carried on, by following the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Be that as it may, under the normal parlance, when a person or a party to the proceedings alleges an act of Contempt and files a proceeding before the Tribunal or a Court alleging non-compliance of an order passed by the court or by the Tribunal, the Applicant si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpt proceedings ought not to be dismissed for want of prosecution and it deserved to be decided on merits even in the absence of the applicant. The question which would engage consideration will be, as to even when there was a lack of diligence as observed in the order dismissing the application for want of prosecution, whether at all the same could be dismissed for want of prosecution as it has been made in the instant case by the order passed on 30.08.2019. The observation made in para 2 of the order dismissing the Contempt Petition, for want of prosecution was on the ground that the email communication and objection raised on 14th June 2019 and 10th June 2019, had not been complied, with. Even in these eventualities, where the defect has not been complied if the defect is not so fatal, which may have any affect the merits of the proceedings of the Contempt, it could have been ignored in the vital interest of justice or an opportunity could further have been granted to rectify the defect rather than proceeding to dismiss the Contempt for want of prosecution and that too, when the Contempt related to the enforcement of the order of 28.02.2019 rendered in suit under Section 108 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....king recall of the order dated 30.08.2019 which was accompanied with a Condone Delay Application being CA.No.16A of 2021. If the reasons which has been assigned in those two Applications are taken into consideration, owing to the ailment of the Applicants, as it has been mentioned in the Application for Condonation of Delay, as well as in the Restoration Application, the factum of ailment since not been seriously disputed, the Condone Delay application seeking Condonation of 374 days of delay ought to have been condoned and the Restoration Application being CA.No.16/2021 ought to have been considered on its merits after restoring the Contempt Petition to its original number, to be decided on merits. In objection to the Restoration Application as well as the Delay Condonation Application the case of the Respondent was that, in fact, nothing survives in the Contempt Petition to be decided on merits as the order rendered in Suit No. 365 of 2012 has already been complied with. Apart from that they have contended that owning to the compliance already made the proceedings of the Contempt has been rendered infructuous. We feel it apt, to clarify at this juncture itself, that, complianc....