Col A Khanna Sm Retd vs Directors Appointed By Dgcoa Delhi ...
- CitationContempt Case (AT) No. 17 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The word "may" in paragraph 5 of the order dated 02.06.2022 is directory and not mandatory, so a party's failure to file the reports directed to be placed before the NCLT, where the respondent has filed them before the NCLT and sought leave to file in a sealed cover, does not without more amount to a violation of that order warranting initiation of contempt proceedings.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Col. Ashish Khanna, SM (Retd.) ...Applicant
Versus
Directors appointed by DGCoA Delhi ...Contemnor/Respondents Gymkhana Club Ltd. & Anr.
Present: For Applicant: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate For Respondents: Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Ms. Ananya Dhar Chaudhury, Ms. Isha Malik, Advocates for UoI. Mr. Prateek Kumar, Ms. Raveena Rai, Ms. Apeksha Dhanvijay, Advocates DGC.
ORDER
10.08.2023: Heard Mr. Deepak Khosla, Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant.
2. This contempt application has been filed for initiating contempt for
alleging non compliance of the order dated 02.06.2022. This Tribunal in
Company Appeal (AT) No. 93 of 2022 passed an order on 02.06.2022.
Paragraph 5 of the order is as follows:
"5. List this Appeal „For Admission (After Notice)‟ on 01st August, 2022.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India may also place the
Reports, if any, in this Appeal which has been directed to be placed
before the NCLT as per the directions in the Impugned Order."
3. The counsel for the applicant submits that the Reports which were
directed by this Tribunal has not been filed and the word 'may' in paragraph 5
should be read as 'shall'.
Cont'd.../ -2-
4. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 submits that the reports
have been filed before the NCLT and an application has also been filed in the
appeal. Respondent No.1 prays for accepting the reports in a sealed cover.
It is submitted that the application as to whether the report can be filed in the
sealed cover or not, engaging attention in the Company Appeal (AT) No. 93 of
2022.
5. We are of the view that no case has been made out to initiate any
contempt proceedings on the ground that order dated 02.06.2022 has been
violated by the Respondent.
6. We close the contempt application with these observations.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
sa/nn
Contempt Case (AT) No. 17 of 2023
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free