G. Ravi Sankar & Anr. vs S. Radhakrishnan & Ors.

Oral Judgment : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):

This is a Contempt Appeal, being Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 93 / 2023, which has been preferred by the appellant by invoking the provisions contained under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, thereby giving a challenge to the Impugned Order dated 03.10.2023, as it was passed in Contempt Petition No. 2 / 2021 in CP No. 40 / 2011 (TP No. 50 / HDB / 2016). By virtue of the Impugned Order, which is under challenge, the learned Adjudicating Authority had called upon the appellant to file a reply by 09.10.2023 before the Tribunal, giving reasons, as to why an appropriate order of punishment in accordance with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, may not be awarded, due to the alleged default committed by the Appellant in complying with its Order as rendered on 26.10.2017 in CP No. 40 / 2011 (TP No. 50 / 2016).

It is to be noted that the learned Adjudicating Authority, while passing the aforesaid Impugned Order had only called upon the appellant to file a reply by 09.10.2023, explaining with reasons as to why the appellant may not be punished for not complying the Order passed by the Tribunal on 26.10.2017 and that it had not passed any order of punishment. In accordance with the provisions of the Contempt Act, an appeal would lie before an Appellate Court only, as against the order of punishment. We are of the view that at a stage, when the Court or Tribunal records a prima facie satisfaction, about a default of an order passed by it, it is only recording a prima facie satisfaction to justify the necessity of initiating the proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. That, in itself, may not be construed as if, the Tribunal has drawn an inference that the Contemnor thus called to file a reply is bound to be held liable for punishment for contempt, because after submission of the reply, the contempt proceedings may also be dropped, if it is found that there is no deliberate or intentional act of contempt by the contemnor.

The learned counsel for the appellant, has attempted to interpret the observation made in Para 28 of the Impugned Order, as if it is a finding recording that, the appellant has already been held to have violated the order dated 26.10.2017. In fact, this may not be the correct interpretation which could be given to the said finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, because had that been so, the learned Tribunal would have already passed an order of punishment under Section 12 / 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act instead of calling upon the appellant to file a reply. Further, since in this case, as per the rules framed under the Contempt of Courts Act, charges are yet to be framed, after arriving at a prima facie opinion of contempt, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has held the Appellant / Contemnor to be guilty of contempt.

Moreover, calling upon the appellant to file a reply in itself amounts to that, there is no conclusive decision on contempt and that it is only a step taken for the purposes of arriving at a conclusion, as to whether, at all, under the given set of facts and circumstances, the punishment under Contempt of Court Act is required to be levied upon the Contemnor. Since, imposition of punishment not being the intention at this stage in the instant case, the appeal since being statutorily barred will not be maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Upon dismissal of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has made a request that, the time period thus provided by the Tribunal, as observed in Para 29 of the Impugned Order, for filing of the reply, may be directed to be extended, so as to enable the Appellant to file a reply, as called for by the Impugned Order under challenge.

So far as the direction contained in Para 29 of the Impugned Order is concerned, at this stage the appellant has been called for to file a reply, and therefore, filing of a reply in-person or through a counsel, in itself, will meet the objective of the Order dated 03.10.2023. For the purposes of filing of a reply, the personal presence of the appellant who is the alleged Contemnor is not required at this stage.

It is only when the Tribunal comes to a conclusion of an apparent, intentional and deliberate contempt having been committed, then only after framing of a charge under Rule 13 of the Contempt of Courts Rules, the appellant may be called upon to appear in-person before the Tribunal, if required as per law.

Subject to the aforesaid exception, the Contempt Appeal i.e. Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 93 / 2023, preferred under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, would stand dismissed and it is made clear that, it will be open for the appellant to raise all factual pleas in his defence against the allegation of contempt levelled against him, subject to filing of reply within 2 weeks, from the date of receipt of the Certified copy of this Order. Accordingly, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, would stand closed.