TaxTMI 
2026 (11) TMI 155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, still they had proceeded to issue cheques in contravention to the order that was rendered by the Tribunal on 05.01.2024. 2. The appellant in the contempt petition has submitted that they have been victimized despite order dated 05.01.2024, because of the fact, that the respondent continued to operate the bank accounts by issuance of cheques, which was on the face of it in contravention to the Order passed by the Tribunal on 05.01.2024, which imposed a restraint on the respondent from operating the bank accounts. It was contended that, because of the fact, that they persisted to issue cheques as referred in the proceedings of the contempt, they were liable to be punished under Section 12 read with Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 3. In order to better appreciate the argument extended by the Counsel for the appellant, reference to the Order passed by NCLT on 05.01.2024, becomes relevant at this juncture, as to what were the scope of restrictions, that has been imposed by the learned Tribunal, on the respondents against whom contempt is alleged. Para - 16 of the Order of 05.01.2024 reads as under: - "However, keeping in view the developments that have taken ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h other transfers, those were referred in the application preferred under Section 425, the appellants in the Contempt Petition that was preferred on 14.05.2024, prayed for summoning the respondent in person and to punish them for willful disobeying the order of 05.01.2024. 6. Under the Companies Act, the powers to draw contempt proceedings has been contemplated under Section 425 of the Companies Act, which prescribes that, for the purposes of drawing the proceedings under Section 425, provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would be attracted to be made applicable. In that eventuality, the contempt petition preferred by the appellant would have to be read to be under Section 425 along with Section 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971. 7. It is the settled law that for the purposes of drawing a contempt proceedings, as against the alleged contemnor, it has had to be made out, that there was an intentional and deliberate contempt, prior to passing of an order of punishment under Section 12 of the Act of 1971, as against the alleged contemnor. In accordance with the facts that have been brought on record, the petitioner Ghanshyam Tayal, who was an applicant to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of said cheques, which were issued by respondent No.3 after passing of the Order dated 05.01.2024. 10. The contempt proceeding was contested. The respondent No.3 filed its reply on 25.07.2024 and contended that the entire allegation of illegal siphoning of money on the basis of the aforesaid cheques, was absolutely not made out as no money has moved out of account as alleged to have been siphoned by respondent No.3, nor was it ever attempted by the alleged contemnor. Hence, they prayed that as the respondent No.3 has not signed any cheque, after passing of the order dated 05.01.2024, no contempt could be made out against him. In further clarification to his argument, it was submitted that since the cheques had a reference to 'yourself', such type of cheques are issued for the RTGS transfers and not for transfer to self. Under these backdrops, when the contempt petition came up for consideration before the learned Tribunal, the same has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence the instant company appeal. 11. Owing to the provisions contained under section 425 of the Companies Act, which attracts the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for the purposes of dealing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... after the order of 05.01.2024, as mentioned in the Order; it was contended by the respondent, that all these statements of transactions which have been detailed therein were by virtue of post-dated cheques, which were in possession of the petitioner. It was rather the petitioner himself, who had deposited those cheques in the bank after the passing of the interim Order of 05.01.2024. Further, there had been no material on record in the contempt proceedings, that the petitioner or the respondent had placed any such material to show any such cheques were ever issued after passing of the interim order by this Tribunal, nor the same has been proved otherwise. 13. The learned Tribunal based upon the rival contentions has come to the conclusion, that the bank statements those have been placed on record in support of the Contempt Petition, there were no entries in the records with regards to any encashment being made of the alleged cheques, moreover, the cheques were dated 08.04.2024 which were drawn in favour of 'yourself' and that has not been encashed as stated by respondent No.3. Besides, the bank statement filed by the petitioner does not reflect, that the said amount was ever en....