TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roof of his illness by producing a medical certificate along with the present applications nor his authorized representative filed any supporting affidavit by explaining that why he could not able to appear before this Bench on the due date of hearing nor he sought for adjournment by requesting some other proxy counsel or representative - Hence, the reasons shown for restoration are not adequate for want of necessary proof. It is well settled legal position in catena of decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court and High Courts that if there is allegation of breach of Court s order/direction and there is prima-facie evidence for alleged breach of order, then the matter becomes a matter between the court and alleged contemnor and the status o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved that the applicant was not present on the scheduled date of hearing i.e. 19.03.2018. Further, he did not remain present in previous hearing on 21.02.2018 onwards nor he took any step to pursue his matter. While on the other side, i.e. the counsel for respondents, was very much present. In fact, on previous hearing, i.e. on 21.02.2018, the matter was adjourned by this Bench on the basis of a request letter of adjournment sent by the applicant himself. 4. Thereafter, this Tribunal passed a consequential order on 19.03.2018 in both I.A. s, which is now impugned in the present restoration application. 5. The applicant has shown common reason seeking restoration of these applications contending that on 21.02.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany Law Board (CLB), Mumbai, later on, it came to be transferred to this Bench of the NCLT. Therefore, no sufficient reasons are shown by the applicant seeking restoration of present applications, hence, such applications are liable to be dismissed with cost. 8. We examined the merits of the present applications in the light of Respondents affidavit in reply and duly considered the submissions made by the Ld. Counsels for both the parties. 9. We are of the view that the applicant has not produced sufficient proof nor shown convincing reasons for his non-appearance or the absence of his authorized representative on the due date of hearing before this Court. He did not furnish proof of his illness by producing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present restoration application. 12. It is well settled legal position in catena of decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court and High Courts that if there is allegation of breach of Court s order/direction and there is prima-facie evidence for alleged breach of order, then the matter becomes a matter between the court and alleged contemnor and the status of the applicant can only be of complainant/informer. It is further matter of record that this Bench already formed a prima-facie view that the direction issued by this Court and order of the CLB were not implemented by the respondents, which may amount to be contempt of Court. Hence, such issue needs to be dealt with on its merits not to be decided on account of procedural l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
