AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
This Tribunal by an order dated 12.09.2024, had passed an Interim Order, whereby the contemnor was refrained from holding the COC meeting. Subsequent thereto, the appellant by filing an Urgency Application being IA No. 966/2024, had intimated this Tribunal that Mr. S. Kangayan, the IRP of Corporate Debtor, EXCEL DWELLINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED had deliberately flouted the order passed by this Tribunal on 12.09.2024. Owing to the communication which was made by him on 19.09.2024, taking the aforesaid pleading, raised in application being IA No. 966/2024, this Tribunal has taken a Suo-moto cognizance for drawing a contempt petition under Section 425 of the Companies Act, to be read with Section 12/14 of the Contempt of the Courts Act, and has directed that, the application for an advance hearing would be treated to be an application under Section 425. Mr. S. Kangayan, the alleged Contemnor was called upon to appear in person so as to explain his conduct, as to why, despite of having knowledge of the Order of 12.09.2024, he has proceeded to pass an order on 19.09.2024, whereby he has continued to act on the resolutions of the first CoC meeting which was held on 10.09.2024.
Subsequent thereto, the alleged contemnor had appeared in person, and filed his reply, but having found the same to be not satisfactory, this Tribunal has framed a charge against him for drawing the contempt proceedings. In compliance thereto, the alleged contemnor had filed his reply to the charge on 07.11.2024. In the reply thus preferred, the contemnor had, in fact, extended an unfettered apology contending thereof that, there was no deliberate or intentional act on his part to commit any such type of contempt, as it has been alleged in IA No. 966/2024, of which the cognizance was taken by us.
Exclusively, taking a lenient view, though we are refraining to observe on merits with regards to the conduct and reply extended by the alleged contemnor, since there happens to be an unconditional apology the same is accepted, the charge thus framed against the alleged contemnor would stand dropped and the notice of contempt issued to Mr. S. Kangayan would too stand quashed. Accordingly, IA No. 966/2024 would stand closed.
There had been a prolonged arguments in the instant company appeal, as it has been extended by the counsel for the appellant, while putting a challenge to the Judgment dated 08.08.2024, as rendered in CP(IB) No. 150/BB/2023. Primarily, the argument of the Learned Counsel for the appellant had been that the Impugned Order would be bad in the eyes of the law for the reason being that, there was no prior notice with regards to the proceedings being held, and as such the order happens to be an order which has been passed without initiating and appreciating the contention of the appellant. Apart from it, the order does not reflect at any stage that the service of notice on the appellant was effected upon though a passing observation has been made in Para 4 of the Impugned Judgment, which has been constituted as to be the basis for proceeding to pass the Impugned Order.
Infact at this stage when the aspect pertaining to the non-issuance of the notice and the knowledge of the proceedings to the appellant is concerned, it is quite apparent from the order itself that, since the appellant was not appropriately served and that he was not represented on the date when the Impugned Order was passed. We, without expressing or making any attempt to venture into the merits of the matter, are of the view on this simplicitor ground, that it goes to the prime principle of adjudication, that an adversary has to be heard on the merits of the matter which has not been done in this case. Accordingly, the Impugned Judgment dated 08.08.2024 is hereby quashed on this primary ground and the matter is remitted back to the NCLT, Bangalore, with a request that it will pass an order afresh after hearing the version of the appellant who is the opposite party to the proceedings and since the proceedings dates to that of 2023, it is hoped and trusted that it would be decided expeditiously, and the same is requested to the adjudicating authority.
It is made clear that the notice of the pendency of the proceedings is being taken by the appellant and he would represent his cause before the adjudicating authority and ensure that he would actively participate in the proceedings to ensure an expeditious disposal. Subject to the aforesaid, the appeal would stand allowed.