TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the allegation, it has been submitted that there no ownership rights have been created by the Respondents/alleged Contemnors in favour any third party and only a development agency has been engaged to continue with the housing project of the Respondent No. 1 Company - In the instant case the Applicant has not been able to establish with cogent evidence that ownership of the said project of Respondent No. 1 has been transferred in favour any third party. No case about contempt of this Tribunal's orders dated 15.9.2017 and 15.1.2019 has been made - the present contempt petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. - Cont. A. 3/(ND)2021 in C.P. No. 224(ND)/2017 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2022 - Bachu Venkat Balaram Das, Member (J) And Narender Kumar Bhola, Member (T) For the Appellant : Sandeep Agarwal, Sr. Counsel, Nakul Jain and Natasha Sood, Advs. For the Respondents : Rahul Malhotra, Adv. ORDER Narender Kumar Bhola, Member (T) 1. The present application has been filed by the Applicant/petitioner No. 1 u/s. 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 for following reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he alleged Contemnors sought numerous opportunities/extensions to file their response and to place on record documents qua the parcel of land and even after a lapse of 147 days from the passing of order dated 21.08.2017 when the alleged Contemnors intentionally avoided doing the needful, this Hon'ble Tribunal, taking cognizance of the dilatory, suspicious and evasive conduct of the alleged Contemners, was pleased to record in its order dated 15.01.2019 as infra: ........Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant is present. None appears for the non-applicant. It is seen from the Order doted 11.01.2019 passed by this Tribunal that in C.A. No. 214/C-IIIIND/2018. Ld. Counsel for Respondents 1 to 4 sought for some time to place on record relevant documents in relation to the immoveable property of the Respondent Company, being Plot No. 31, Knowledge Park, Greater Noida, West being the subject matter of the said application. Last opportunity was given for this purpose, but despite the time being granted, no documents to this effect have been placed on record as seen from the record of this Tribunal. The said documents have not been made available to the (Petitioner No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... triment of Petitioner No. 1 herein as well as the Respondent No. 1 company. It has also come to the knowledge of the Petitioner No. 1 that in the early January, 2021 altercation occurred at the project site inter se the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/alleged Contemners and Contemner No. 1 and its representatives when police were called and criminal complaints were filed by/against the said parties./At the end it is submitted that from the afore stated facts, it is crystal clear that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/alleged Contemnors, in cahoots with Contemnor Nos. 1 to 6, have willfully violated/breached orders dated 15.09.2017 and 15.01.2019 respectively and have thereby obstructed the course of justice consequently bringing into disrepute the judicial Institution and are therefore liable to be prosecuted for contempt. Hence, the present Contempt Petition. 3. The Respondent No. 1 to 4/alleged contemnors has filed the reply to the contempt application and raised the question regarding maintainability of present application and further submitted that the applicant has published the notice on 15.02.2021 with the mala fide intention. However, the tribunal wanted to hear the parties before issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant extract of the judgment is as follows: 19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self-determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same. Decided issues cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect have been placed on record as seen from the record of this Tribunal. The said documents have not been made available to the (Petitioner No. 1/Applicant). In the circumstances, let status-quo may be maintained in relation to the said property situated at Plot No. 31, Knowledge Park. Greater Noida (West) till the next date of hearing in the main Company petition which is posted on 06.02.1019.... 8. Admittedly, there is no allegation with regard to any change in shareholding of the Applicant having been effected by the Respondents/alleged Contemnors. Therefore, no case is made out with respect to disobedience in relation to this part of the order. 9. Now, coming to the second part of the order, it is seen the Respondent No. 1 is a company engaged in the real estate business. In defence of the allegation, it has been submitted that there no ownership rights have been created by the Respondents/alleged Contemnors in favour any third party and only a development agency has been engaged to continue with the housing project of the Respondent No. 1 Company. Carrying on of construction activity by Respondent No. 1 even through third party under a valid agreement is not in viol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
