Hemendra Aran vs Aranca (Mumbai) Private Limited & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Hemendra Aran ...Appellant

Versus

Aranca (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Dhiraj Mhetre, Ms. Shivani Sharma, Mr. Shreyas Lele, Mr. Suraj Dhavan, Mr. Sanampreet Singh, Advocates for R-1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

03.08.2026: The brief history, as it has been attempted to be addressed

upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant, is under the back drop of the

order dated 30.09.2022 that, was passed by the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai Bench-I

in CA No. 231/MB/C-I/2022, which was preferred in C.P No. 755/MB/C-

I/2017 in the matter of 'Greenwood Investment (Mauritius) Limited vs.

Hemendra Aran'. The proceedings, which was thus agitated before the Ld.

Tribunal resulted into the dismissal of the company petition, simultaneously

there was an alternative relief that, was sought for a direction to the

respondents therein to address the liability arising of the unauthorized

Corporate Guarantee dated 09.01.2017 in favour of M/s Sourya Container

Leasing Company.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 208 of 2026 -2-

2. We at this stage are refraining to venture upon the merits of the

matter. The reason, being that the stage, at which proceedings are being

taken up before us, in the shape of the instant company appeal, we have to

only venture upon a very limited issue: as to whether at all the order dated

01.12.2025 could have been recalled, which had ultimately resulted into a

closure of the contempt petition by the order of 01.12.2025 on the ground of

attraction of the provisions contained under Section 20 of Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971, since the proceedings being barred by limitation, having

been preferred after lapse of one year of the order of which contempt was

alleged.

3. The order dated 30.09.2022 infact was rendered on culmination of

proceedings. It had ultimately resulted into a closure of those proceedings as

referred to herein and above. Thereof the respondent therein, who is the

appellant herein was directed to deposit the amount Rs.3,94,99,355/- with

the registry of the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai. This order was taken up before the

tribunal, since it was not complied with. Earlier a contempt petition i.e.

being Contempt Petition No. 8/MB/C-I/2022. Those contempt petition was

decided by the Ld. Tribunal by an order dated 19.05.2023 and more

importantly the observations, which has been made by the Ld. Tribunal

while adjudicating upon the proceedings of the Contempt Petition No.

8/MB/C-I/2022. The Ld. Tribunal has made the following observations:

"26. The proper course of action to bring on record crucial facts such as submissions advanced by the Advocate without

Company Appeal (AT) No. 208 of 2026 -3-

instructions, cannot be brought to judicial notice merely on the strength of a praecipe which was not even physically tendered in the court. This conduct of the Respondent clearly proves that the plea of submissions were made without instructions are merely an afterthought.

27. In the aforesaid backdrop, we hold that the Respondent has willfully disobeyed the Order dated 30.09.2022 and therefore is guilty of contempt of this Tribunal's Order. Hence, we accord an opportunity to the Contemnor to purge the contempt, by depositing an amount of Rs.3,94,99,355/- Crore with the Registry of NCLT, Mumbai within a period of four weeks. We further impose a fine of Rs.2000 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on the Contemnor which is to be deposited in Bharatkosh."

4. This order passed by the Ld. NCLT on 19.05.2023 was taken up before

this Tribunal in Comp. App. (AT) No. 244 of 2024 the same was dismissed on

04.03.2025 and ultimately it had culminated into its final adjudication,

before Hon'ble Apex Court, by way of Civil Appeal Nos. 5944-5945 of 2023.

The order of NCLAT was taken up to the Hon'ble Apex Court, at the behest of

the appellant and the company appeal before Hon'ble Apex Court was closed

by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its Judgment dated 13.10.2023 and the

following order was passed:

"Delay condoned.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any good ground and reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence, the present appeals are dismissed.

After the order is dictated, request is made by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant -

Company Appeal (AT) No. 208 of 2026 -4-

Hemendra Aran to grant time to deposit Rs.3,94,99,355/- (Rupees three crore ninety four lakhs ninety nine thousand three hundred fifty five only) as the appellant will try to arrange money and make the payment, As prayed, four weeks' time is granted to the appellant to make the said deposit. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

5. Even after the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court the appellant had once

again approached this tribunal by way of Company Appeal (AT) No. 120 of

2024 that was later on sought to be dismissed as withdrawn, by an order

passed on 04.03.2025.

6. Because of the fact that the appellant had persistently committing

contempt of the earlier orders passed by the Ld. Tribunal, a Contempt

Petition No. 21 of 2025 was preferred in Company Petition No. 755 of 2017

and the same upon being taken up. The Ld. Tribunal had proceeded to pass

an order holding thereof that, owing to the fact that, as per the provisions

contained under Section 425 of Companies Act, 2013, which attracts the

applicability of the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971. The

proceedings of the contempt would be barred by Section 20 of Contempt of

Court Act, 1971 and accordingly the contempt petition was rejected by virtue

of an order that was passed on 01.12.2025. The appellant is said to have

filed an application invoking Rule 11 of NCLT Rules 2016, seeking recall of

this order dated 01.12.2025 dismissing the contempt application under

Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, on the ground of limitation. The

recall was preferred on various ground and particularly the ground, which

Company Appeal (AT) No. 208 of 2026 -5-

has been agitated by him before this tribunal was that the Ld. Tribunal,

while passing the order of 01.12.2025 has not considered the material

allegation, which was set up by the appellant, besides that the order

happens to be in violation of principal of natural justice.

7. Having considered the application for restoration that, was preferred

by the appellant the Ld. Tribunal has proceeded to pass the impugned order

on 13.02.2026 holding thereof that, the Restoration Application (Companies

Act) No. 4 of 2026 in CP No. 755 of 2017, doesn't deserves consideration. The

reason being that, the Restoration Application No. 4 of 2026 is intended to

rejuvenate the proceedings of the Contempt Petition No. 21 of 2025, to be

taken up de novo afresh, which has been otherwise decided on merits in the

light of the provisions contained under Section 20 of the Contempt of Court

Act 1971, holding thereof that, the Contempt Petition was not maintainable,

under law.

8. Filing of a recall application on the ground that the appellant was not

heard or his material arguments were not considered when the order of

01.12.2025 was passed. That may not be an issue which could now be open

for consideration by us for the reason, that when a court was dealing with

the proceedings and had decided the same on the ground of limitation. At

that stage of proceeding the courts are refrained under law to venture upon

the merits of the matter at all and is not supposed to record any finding on

merits, when dismissal was due to limitation under Section 20 of Contempt

Company Appeal (AT) No. 208 of 2026 -6-

of Courts Act, 1971, which is now being attempted by the appellant, when he

argues the instant company appeal against the impugned order.

9. The platform of Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016, which is now being

utilized by the appellant to file a Restoration Application, may not be the

platform available to him under law. As it was alternatively intended to be

applied to rejuvenate the proceedings of the Contempt Petition, which stood

dismissed by an order of 01.12.2025 on merits. The restoration application,

which is thus filed by the appellant by invoking the provisions contained

under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016, Rule 11 of the rules itself, that cannot

be taken as to be a shelter or creating a platform to draw proceedings to re-

decide the matter afresh as if being a review i.e. the Contempt Petition No. 21

of 2025 in Company Petition No. 755 of 2017. It would be tantamount to

reopening the entire issue to be reconsidered on its merit by recalling of the

order dated 01.12.2025, which has been otherwise under the eyes of law will

be deemed to have been adjudicated on merits of the contempt petition. The

restoration application would be treated to columned in a manner to seek

review of the order dated 01.12.2025, which is otherwise not open under law.

10. Since there is no scope available for restoration of the contempt

petition, which has been decided on merits. Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 will

not be the recourse available to the appellant under law to invoke a

restoration application as if being a review, for recalling of the order dated

01.12.2025, the dismissal of the same by the impugned order dated

13.02.2026 by the Ld. Tribunal doesn't suffers from any legal error, which

Company Appeal (AT) No. 208 of 2026 -7-

could have called for any interference by this Appellate Tribunal. The

Company Appeal lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. All

pending interlocutory applications would stand closed.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)

SA/rr

Company Appeal (AT) No. 208 of 2026