AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 1 - Bank engaged in settlement talks and reached an understanding regarding the repayment of the financial debt. 5. On 04.10.2024, Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 - Bank agreed to amicably settle the dispute and thereafter settled it by agreeing to payment of Rs.5,71,07,504/- and in that regard executed and signed the Consent Terms. 6. On 18.04.2024, NCLT took Consent Terms on record and disposed the proceedings filed by Respondent No. 1 - Bank against Petitioner vide order dated 18.04.2024 in terms of the Agreement. 7. It is Petitioner's case that it made payment of entire consideration in accordance with the schedule set out in the Consent Terms. On 30.12.2024, Petitioner requested Respondent No. 1 - Bank to issue a "No Dues Certificate". However, on 04.01.2025, despite receiving the full agreed-upon settlement amount, Respondent No. 1 - Bank with its letter demanded payment of alleged balance amount of Rs. 18,57,061.47/- thereby disregarding the Consent Term and the NCLT's order. 8. It is Petitioner's case that it responded to Respondent No. 1 - Bank's letter and further issued two letters dated 15.01.2025 and 07.02.2025 to Respondent No. 1 - Bank as a final remin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ried out express amendments as reflected in Schedule XI of the IBC. He would submit that the absence of any amendment to Section 425 to include contempt jurisdiction in relation to IBC proceedings clearly indicates legislative intent to exclude such powers. He would submit that settled principles of statutory interpretation mandate that Courts cannot supply omissions or confer jurisdiction by implication where the legislature has consciously refrained from doing so. Hence, he would submit that contempt jurisdiction under Section 425 of the Companies Act remains confined strictly to proceedings under the Companies Act and therefore cannot be extended to IBC proceedings. 10.3. He would submit that the scheme of the IBC itself reinforces this position as Sections 60 to 64 create a complete adjudicatory and appellate framework without conferring any powers to try for contempt of its orders upon the NCLT. He would submit that the residuary jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the IBC even though being wide is however limited to disputes arising out of or in relation to Insolvency Resolution and cannot be stretched to include penal contempt proceedings. In support of his submissions he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llate Tribunal at New Delhi, Company Appeal (AT) (INS) No.945 of 2020, held that the NCLT has contempt jurisdiction even under the IBC however it does not lay down the correct proposition of law as it overlooks the statutory scheme and the settled principle that contempt jurisdiction must be expressly conferred. He would however submit that in any event the said decision is not binding on this Court. 10.8. He would submit that in view of the statutory scheme of the IBC, the legislative omission to confer contempt jurisdiction upon the Adjudicating Authority and the settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the NCLT lacks jurisdiction to entertain contempt proceedings in respect of orders passed under the IBC. He would submit that this Court being a Constitutional Court of record and exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the NCLT is therefore fully empowered under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India to take cognizance of and punish contempt arising from non-compliance of NCLT orders. Hence, he would urge the Court to hear and adjudicate the present Contempt Petition in the interest of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in respect of contempt of themselves as the High Court has and for this purpose exercise powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 subject to specified statutory modifications. The contempt jurisdiction under Section 425 is plenary and self-contained. It is neither conditional nor limited by the source of jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal. Once contempt powers are conferred by statute, they vest in the Tribunal as an institution and apply to all proceedings (emphasis supplied) before it irrespective of whether the Tribunal is exercising jurisdiction under the Companies Act, the IBC, or any other law for the time being in force. 17. It is further seen that Section 425 of the Companies Act makes no distinction between proceedings under the Companies Act and those under any other enactment. Reading such a restriction into the provision would amount to adding words to the statute which is impermissible in law. 18. Section 408 of the Companies Act, 2013 reinforces this position. It provides for the constitution of the NCLT and mandates that the Tribunal shall exercise powers and functions conferred upon it under the Companies Act or any other law in force. The NCLT there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... enforceable and final. 23. Attention is further drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (supra) wherein the Court categorically held that the NCLT and the NCLAT owe their existence to both the the Companies Act, 2013 and IBC. The Supreme Court rejected any compartmentalisation of the Tribunal's jurisdiction based on the statute invoked. Therefore, once it is held that the Tribunal derives its authority, purpose and jurisdiction from two interconnected statutes, it would be in incongruity to hold that the same Tribunal possesses contempt jurisdiction under one statute but stands divested of such power under another. An adjudicating authority cannot be attributed with a split or fragmented personality. An adjudicating authority cannot be said to function with divided powers. 24. The doctrine of effectiveness also applies to the present case. Attention is invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tinsukhia Electric Supply Company Limited v. State of Assam and Others 1989 (3) SCC 709, wherein the Court held that statutory provisions must be interpreted to give them meaningful effect and to advance their purpose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... company, or (b) the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business, in case the order is against any such person. 30. Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 confers powers on the 'Tribunal' (NCLT) to punish for 'Contempt'. The language employed in Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 is that the power of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are vested with the NCLT while adjudicating all proceedings that come before it. In this regard, it is necessary to consider the ingredients of Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 which do not mention that the provisions of power under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are applicable only in respect of proceedings before 'Tribunal' confined to the provisions of Companies Act, 2013. 31. Under the IBC, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) adjudicates all proceedings before it and renders its decision. Only because the IBC does not specifically mention about the contempt provisions it cannot be said that the 'Adjudicating Authority' (NCLT) has no powers of contempt. If one is to give such a restricted interpretation that the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has no jurisdiction of contempt then its orders will be implemented a....