2026 (4) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ates For the Respondents : Mr. Amir Bavani, Ms. Rishika Kumar & Ms. Pragati Prajapati, Advocates for R1 Mr. TK. Bhaskar, Advocate For Mr. Naresh Kumar Sangam, Advocate for R2 Mr. E. Om Prakash, Senior Advocate For Mr. Naresh Kumar Sangam, Advocate for R3 Mr. PH. Arvindh Pandian, Senior Advocate For Mr. Naresh Kumar Sangam, Advocate for R4 & R5 ORDER Oral Judgment : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial): In the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 35 / 2026, we would be exclusively dealing with the instances of judicial and procedural impropriety and none of the observations to be made by us, would be touching the merits of the case of either of the parties to the proceedings. 2. The facts, which could be cul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that, it was closed by an order passed by the Ld. Tribunal on 19.06.2025, observing thereof, that no proceedings remain as on date which could be requiring for enforcement of an order of 24.01.2023. However, we note that the Contempt Petition was dismissed on a very peculiar ground which is that, the Ld. Tribunal on one hand, observes that, owing to the apologies tendered, the Contempt Petition was closed and simultaneously holds that the Contempt Petition is not maintainable. The above two observations are self-contradictory. Either the Contempt Petition would be not maintainable or it was maintainable, but still, was closed on the basis of an apology tendered, but, the use of both the expressions cannot go simultaneously together. 5....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a joint signatory from all bank accounts of the applicant No.1 Company and c) to permit the Applicant No.1 company to change bank account operation authorisation in accordance with resolution of its Board of Directors. Both the parties Senior Advocates present and advanced their arguments at length. During the course of hearing, the Counsel for the Applicants intends to withdraw the IA. Permission granted. Accordingly IA (Companies Act)/42/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn." 7. Accordingly, the Ld. Tribunal closed the aforesaid Interlocutory Application on the ground that the same is being sought to be dismissed as withdrawn by the Applicant / Respondent. However, the Respondents herein for the reasons best known to them have pref....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ided with consent vide order dated 24.01.2023. 8. Thus, the Interlocutory Application, which was preferred, being IA No. 48 / 2025 by the Respondents, was in the shape of seeking a review of the order dated 24.01.2023, which is surprising given that the Respondents / Applicants must have been conscious of the fact that an earlier application IA No. 42 / 2025 seeking to modify the consent order had already been dismissed as withdrawn, by an order of 27.11.2025. 9. Be that as it may. The controversy, which has now been placed before us, is surprising because for the reasons best known the Respondents herein, who were the Applicants to IA No. 48 / 2025, appeared in the proceedings held before the Ld. Tribunal on 12.02.2026 and sought the....