Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2025) 01 NCLAT CK 2116

Amit Sangal & Anr. vs Kairav Anil Trivedi

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 28 January 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rakesh Kumar Jain, Member (Judicial) · Indevar Pandey, Member (Technical)
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2371 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8900 of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 427 words

(Hybrid Mode)

This appeal is filed by the alleged Contemnor/ Respondent in the Contempt Petition No.8 of 2022 who are aggrieved against the order dated 19.11.2024 by which notice has been issued to them and they have been called upon to file the reply. The order dated 19.11.2024 is reproduced as under:-

“The registry is directed to issue a court notice to the Respondent/s with a direction to the respondent/s to file reply, if any, within a period of 4 weeks. List this matter on 21.01.2025.”

2.

Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the case has now been adjourned from 21.01.2024 to 27.02.2024 by the court without passing any effective order.

3.

The main thrust of the argument of the appellants is that the contempt petition was not by itself maintainable in law.

4.

We have heard counsel for the Petitioner and are of the considered opinion that so far the Ld. Tribunal has only issued notice to both the appellants and has not passed any effective order against them. The appellants have yet to file their reply.

5.

The issue in regard to maintainability is always a preliminary issue which has to be taken by the Ld. Tribunal in case it is so raised.

6.

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the issue of maintainability shall be raised before filing the reply which may be ordered to be decided by passing a speaking order. It is also submitted that in case the issue of maintainability is decided in favour of the appellant then the grievance of the appellant shall be over but in case the issue of maintainability is decided against then the appellant shall have the liberty to file an appeal under Section 61 of the code before this Tribunal.

7.

We have heard counsel for the Appellants and are of the considered opinion that this appeal is presently pre-mature because the issue of maintainability is yet to be decided by the Ld. Tribunal. The appellants may, if so advised file a separate application before filing the reply to the main petition in which the issue of maintainability may be raised and in case it is so filed before the next date of hearing i.e. 27.02.2025, the Ld. Tribunal is directed to decide the application first in accordance with law qua the maintainability of the contempt petition. In case any adverse order is passed, the appellant shall be at liberty to file an appeal against the said order in accordance with law.

8.

With these observations, the present appeal is hereby disposed of.