AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Kalla, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant. He submits, his client is the company, in respect of which the petition (COPET) was filed under section 391 in Companies Act, 1956. Interim order dated 5th October, 2007 was passed, inter alia, directing no coercive action to be taken against it. The order was to notice of Orissa State Financial Corporation (OSFC), alleged contemner no.1 being office holder of it. He draws attention to annexure-6 being letter dated 17th March, 2022 issued by OSFC regarding sale of industrial assets of his client. He submits, this was blatant violation of the direction made in said order.
Ms. Pradhan, learned advocate appears on behalf of alleged contemner no.1 and prays for adjournment to obtain instruction and submit. Mr. Pattnaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of OSFC and submits, the interim order could not have been made under sections 390 or 391. His client duly proceeded for recovery.
Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of alleged contemner no.4 and Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate for alleged contemner nos. 2 and 5.
Contempt jurisdiction does not require adjudication on whether or not the order violated is a good order. In event of the financial corporation having found the order was not good, it had remedy to seek correction. However, it did not have licence to violate the order.
List on 3rd November, 2022 along with the COPET no.22 of 2007.
…………………………