9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not survive and has become infructuous. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. CA No.2087/2013 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. CA No.2088/2013 & CA No.2118/2013 (service by e-mail) The present application was filed by the appellant seeking exemption from serving hard copy as an advance notice to the respondent. Perusal of the order sheet shows that the respondent had appeared in the matter and had not raised any objection as to the service by e-mail. Accordingly, no further orders are called for in the present application. The application is disposed of as infructuous. CA Nos.2089/2013 & 2119/2013 This is an application for enlargement of time to pay the court fees as was then payable in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant and, in the alternative, seeking deletion of the respondents from the array of respondents and for discharge from the company petition filed by the appellant before the Company Law Board. 3. The appellant contends that the effect of the filing of the application by the respondent was that the respondents did not wish to be heard before the Company Law Board or in the proceedings arising therefrom. It is contended that despite the filing of the application, the respondents sought to appear in the appeal filed by the appellant before this Court. It is contended on behalf of the appellant/applicant that the appearance by the respondents through counsel in the appeal filed by the appellant amounts to criminal contempt as they had already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is contended by the appellant that the said application which was filed with diary No.6537/2013 was dismissed by the Company Law Board and the order dated 13.11.2013 was not modified. It is further contented that no further appeal was filed against the order dismissing the said application. However, the dismissal of the application has been taken as a ground to contend bias or prejudice stemming from discrimination by the Company Law Board. 7. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 defines Criminal Contempt as under:- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires - (c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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. 12. 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 meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... main petition. 15. The contention of the appellant that an application was filed on 13.11.2013 before the Company Law Board to elaborate its order dated 13.11.2013 does not help the case of the appellant as admittedly the said order was not modified. 16. The further contention of the appellant that there are certain factual statements mentioned in the application filed by the appellant explaining and contending what had transpired in Court but not recorded in the order of the Company Law Board is also meritless. 17. It is a settled law State of Maharashtra vs Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak: 1982(2) SCC 463; Guruvayoor Dewaswom Managing Committee vs C K Rajan, 2003 (7) SCC 546 that parties cannot be permitted to rely on what had transpired orall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merit in the application. The application is accordingly dismissed. CA No.416/2014 The present application has been filed by the appellant on the premise that to ascertain as to who was responsible for the acts of criminal contempt, the applicant had sent e-mail dated 23.11.2013 to various parties and as no reply was received to the said e-mail, in the view of the appellant, it is the respondent in the said application, as mentioned in Annexure-2, who would be liable for being punished for criminal contempt. In my view, the very premise of the application is incorrect. Merely because reply is not received to an e-mail would not imply that the noticee had committed criminal contempt. Furthermore, since the applicant seeking initiation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
