Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2021 (2) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 892 - Tri - Companies LawInitiation of Contempt Proceedings - violation of the interim orders - oppression and mismanagement - removal of director - whether the Respondents are guilty of civil contempt - Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - HELD THAT:- In the case of NIAZ MOHAMMAD AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [1994 (9) TMI 364 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that while the contemnors had not obeyed the judgment and released the salary, but this disobedience was not wilful so as to amount to a civil contempt and the Court drew a distinction between a Court executing an order and punishing for contempt Thus, in order to hold a person guilty of civil contempt, it has to be established by the person alleging contempt that the alleged contemnor was guilty of a wilful breach or a wilful disobedience of an order or a direction, decree etc. of any Court. The emphasis, therefore, has to be on the word ‘’wilful’’. The word “wilful‟ means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and with an intent to do something which is forbidden by law or failing to do something which the law requires to be done. In the present case, the petitioner could not establish that there is any wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Tribunal on 27.09.2019. In the absence of any wilful disobedience, this Court cannot grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
|