AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
14.07.2022: Since all the aforesaid contempt petitions were filed on an allegation of dis-obedience to a common order passed in Company Appeal (AT) No. 260/2018 and other connected appeals, all the aforesaid contempt petitions were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
In all the aforesaid petitions, allegation has been made regarding dis-obedience to an order dated 28.08.2018 passed by this Tribunal. By the said order this Tribunal while affirming the order dated 2nd August, 2018 and 3rd August, 2018 in CA No. 179/2018, CA No. 511/2018 and CA No. 618/2018 passed by the ‘National Company Law Tribunal’ u/s 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 had amended/modified the earlier order.
The appeal was preferred against the Interim Order passed by ‘NCLT’, Principal Bench, meaning thereby that this Appellate Tribunal while affirming the Interim Order passed by ‘NCLT’ had issued certain further directions and disposed of the appeals.
When the present petitions were taken up for hearing, Mr. Sudhir K.Makkar, Learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant in Contempt Case (AT) No. 17/2018, 18/2018 and 19/2018 and also appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 6-9 in contempt case AT No. 15/2018 submitted that final hearing before the ‘NCLT’ is continuing and is likely to be concluded very soon. He agreed that it would be futile exercise to keep the present contempt petition pending. However, Shri Chandrashekhar, Learned Counsel for some of the parties tried to persuade the court that this is a case of contempt due to non-compliance of order passed by both ‘NCLT’ and ‘NCLAT’ and as such merely on the ground that hearing in main Company petition before the ‘NCLT’ is continuing, the present proceedings may not be dropped.
We have examined the order passed by this Tribunal and considered the submission of Mr. Chandrashekhar, Learned Counsel as well as the stand taken by Shri Makkar, Learned Sr. Counsel.
We are of the opinion that since the final hearing before the ‘NCLT’ is continuing and as submitted by Learned Sr. Counsel that it is likely to be concluded very soon, it would be futile exercise to keep the present proceedings pending here. Moreover, this Tribunal had only affirmed the Interim Order passed by the ‘NCLT’ in the main Company Petition and since hearing is likely to be concluded before the ‘NCLT’, there is no reason to keep the present proceedings pending here. Hence, all the aforesaid petitions stand disposed of.