TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1805
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation for getting the Certified Copy on 28.03.2025, as the same was received only on 01.04.2025 and they have e-filed the Company Appeal on 11.05.2025 that is well within the upper limit as prescribed under the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016. Hence, the delay that has chanced in preferring the Company Appeal would stand condoned. Accordingly, the Condone Delay Application, being IA No. 1119/2025 & IA No.1122/2025, would stand allowed. We proceed to hear the Learned Counsels on the merits of the Appeal. 2. Before we venture into the intricate question of law, we consider it to be necessary to precisely deal with the factual controversy, as it engages consideration in these two Company Appeals. i.e., Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.378/2025 & Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.380/2025, the Company Appeals, which has been preferred by the Appellants by invoking the provision contained under Section 61 of I & B Code, which is to be read with Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Appellants, in these two Company Appeals have raised their cause being aggrieved as against the impugned order dated 26.03.2025, as it had been respectively passed in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ively, which were lying on the second floor of Manjeera Mall, which were alleged to have been made as subject to the registered lease deed already executed by the Corporate Debtor in their favour. 6. The Applicants, to the Contempt Petition, claimed that the Respondent, had not incorporated the details, pertaining to the units allegedly belonging the Applicant based on agreement for sale in the Information Memorandum, as per the directions of the authority, and contended that the information, which was supplied to them by the Respondent was incomplete and they did not comply with the order of the Learned Adjudicating Authority, and therefore the Applicant to Contempt Petition in response to it are said to have send an email communication of 06.11.2024 & 29.10.2024 (Annexure 4 & Annexure 3 respectively to the application), requesting the Respondent to update the Information Memorandum, on the pretext that, they have claimed that, they have purchased the unit under an agreement for sale, and further that, the rent payments are due. But since no reply has been received. Consequently, the Applicants/Appellants, in the two Company Appeals have come up with a case that the Respondents....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffect the decision making of the prospective resolution applicants or other stakeholders. Discharge the liability of the Corporate Debtor towards the original buyer and Applicant is definitely relevant information and therefore, the RP was supposed to make it part of the Information Memorandum. 35. In the light of the observations and discussions, we find that the information about the liabilities, debts, delegation etc. of the CD is to be included in the Information Memorandum so that every stakeholder may have proper appreciation of the financial strength of the CD. Therefore, the Respondent is directed to include the liabilities of the CD towards the original buyer and the Applicant in Information Memorandum and if it is already included, the Applicant has to be informed within 15 days from passing of the order". 8. In accordance with the directions that were given in the above said paragraph, while deciding the IAs, which were subject matter of consideration in the orders that were passed on 11.06.2024 and 17.09.2024, respectively. In fact, it contained a direction that the Respondents therein were directed to include the liabilities of the Corporate Debtor, towards....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcement of right only depends up on the decision to be taken, in the pending proceedings if any, for the enforcement of the Agreement of Sale, which will be falling specifically within the domain of the Civil Court, by filing of a suit for specific performance. The Tribunal further took into consideration of the fact that, the Respondent did express their liabilities in the Trial Balance Report of the Corporate Debtor, under the head "Advances from Customers", and the Successful Resolution Applicant, had also admitted his liability towards the applicant in the Trial Balance Report, but the Learned Tribunal ultimately found that, since there being lack of sufficiency of the information supplied, that itself will not amount to be a contempt because when it lacks to establish deliberate violation of complying with the directions given in the order of 11.06.2024 and 17.09.2024 respectively. It will not amount to be a contempt to be proceeded with as per Rules framed under Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, and accordingly the contempt has been rightly rejected by the impugned order of 26.03.2025, as rendered respectively in each of the two Company Appeals. 12. Coming to the legal persp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the contempt proceedings, itself could be drawn, when under the I & B Code, itself the attraction of the provision of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to be read with Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013, has not been made either as a "legislation by way of reference or by incorporation?". Because the entire I & B Code is silent on applying the provision contained under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013. Since the nature of proceedings contemplated under the Companies Act and under the I & B Code are absolutely independent with independent objective, and procedurally independent too. The powers of drawing a contempt, for any act of violation of any order that has been passed under the I & B Code, could have only been attracted, only when the I & B Code itself, either "by way of incorporation" or "by way of reference", so as to attract the application of provision contained under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013, to be read with the provision of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Unfortunately, the provision of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, or the provision of Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013, is not an incorporated legislation under the I & B Code. Hence, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be released on bail; and (c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt. (3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2). (4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed- (a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days; (b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against". 15. As per Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it only prescribes for that, appeal would lie from any order or decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction "to punish for contempt". At this juncture, we feel it apt to clarify that the order or decision under challenge has to be independently read. The impugned order would be an Interlocutory Order too, that was passed during the pendency of the main proceedings, and a decision would be a final adjudication of a lis. In the instant case, since it is a contempt emanatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Courts Act, 1971, and that is why since the contempt proceedings has been held to be a proceedings between the Court and the alleged contemnor after the same being filed by the Applicant. The contempt proceedings, since not being a proceedings in persona, being pursued by an Applicant, it is never dismissed in default; it has had to be decided on the merits even in the absence of the applicant to the Contempt Petition. Hence, owing to the aforesaid ground, though at this stage, we are not embarking upon the issue as to whether at all Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013, or the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, will apply qua the proceeding contemplated under I & B Code or not, that is to be dealt with in the bunch of petitions, which we are already seized with. We are deciding this appeal exclusively on the ground that the nature of the order, which is being complained of, as it has been observed by the Tribunal, that there was no deliberate or intentional contempt, which could bring an act of the alleged contemnor, within an ambit of civil contempt to make Respondents liable to be punished as per Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. No appeal under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Civil Appeal Nos.8129-8130/2024 in Ajay Kumar Bhalla and Ors. vs Prakash Kumar Dixit. In the said matter, while referring to para 11 of Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd., the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: - "14. Following the decision in Midnapore People's Coop. Bank Ltd., it is a settled principle that an appeal under Section 19 lies only against an order imposing punishment for contempt. 18. The Division Bench has lost sight of this aspect. The Division Bench, the paragraph 52, noted the submission of the respondent that the Judgment of the Single Judge should not be construed as crystalizing any right in favour of the respondent and should only be confined to the question as to whether the appellants herein had committed a willful disobedience of the order of the Division Bench dated 24 December 2019. The Division Bench accepted this submission and observed that "in view of our understanding of the impugned judgment, as noted above, the learned Single Judge has not decided any dispute regarding the rights and obligations of the parties" other than adjudicating on the issue of contempt. The judgment of the Division Bench lost sight of the fa....