2014 (7) TMI 1391 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the respondent - guilty of suppression and manipulation of the Company Law Board proceedings - HELD THAT - Filing of an application by a party for being deleted from the array of parties does not tantamount to the situation that the applicant does not want to be heard in the matter. The application for being deleted from the array of parties is filed on the premise that the party is neither necessary nor a proper party. The application for being deleted from the array of parties can never be construed as if the applicant does not wish to be heard in the matter. The effect of such an application is that if the application is allowed the applicant would be deleted from the array of parties and if the application is dismissed the applicant would continue to remain a party and would be entitled to be heard in all proceedings. The submission of the appellant that when a notice is issued in a petition and the respondent instead of filing a reply on the merits of the petition files an application seeking deletion from the array of parties amounts to opting not to be heard in the matter in my view is again meritless. If a party chooses not to respond to the factual averments of the main petition the court is entitled to deal with the application or the petition as if the facts have gone unrebutted and appropriate orders would be passed. In the present case the appellant himself had dropped the respondents from the array of parties thereby implying that the respondents were neither necessary nor proper parties to the proceedings and had been incorrectly arrayed in the first instance. No ground is made out to initiate any criminal proceedings against the respondents. There is no merit in the application. The application is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for stay of impugned order in main company appeal.
2. Application for exemption from serving hard copy as advance notice.
3. Application for enlargement of time to pay court fees.
4. Application seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings.
5. Application related to acts of criminal contempt based on e-mail communication.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addressed various applications, including one seeking a stay of the impugned order in the main company appeal. The court noted that the company appeal had been withdrawn, rendering the application for stay infructuous. Consequently, the application was disposed of, and no further orders were required.

2. Another application dealt with seeking exemption from serving a hard copy as an advance notice to the respondent. The court observed that the respondent had not objected to service by e-mail, and thus, no further orders were necessary. The application was disposed of as infructuous.

3. An application was made for enlargement of time to pay court fees in accordance with the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012. However, since the amendment act had been quashed by a Division Bench judgment, the court found no need for further orders in this application, leading to its disposal.

4. The most detailed analysis was for an application seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the respondent. The appellant alleged that the respondent's actions amounted to criminal contempt by filing an application before the Company Law Board and subsequently appearing in the appeal. The court meticulously examined the contentions, finding that the actions alleged did not substantiate criminal contempt. The court clarified that filing an application for deletion from the array of parties did not imply a waiver of the right to be heard. The court dismissed the application for criminal contempt, highlighting the importance of judicial records in determining facts.

5. Lastly, an application was filed concerning acts of criminal contempt based on e-mail communication. The court rejected the premise that lack of response to an e-mail implied criminal contempt. Furthermore, since the related application for criminal contempt had been dismissed, the court deemed this application as not maintainable and dismissed it accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment meticulously addressed various applications, emphasizing the legal principles surrounding contempt proceedings and the importance of judicial records in determining facts. The court's detailed analysis and dismissal of the applications based on the prevailing legal framework underscored the need for adherence to established legal procedures and principles.