Hyderabad Pollutions Controls Ltd vs Hyderabad Pollutions Controls Ltd

2) G. Parameswaran, S/o S. Gopalakrishnan Nair, R/o. Flat No. 204 and 205, Morning Glory, Nagarjuna Homes, Nagarjuna Dreamland, Dulapally Crossroad, Kompally, Secunderabad - 500 014, Telangana .... Appellants

V

1) S. Radhakrishnan, S/o Late G. Sankaran Nair, R/o. 83/B, Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad - 500.038, Telangana

2) Mrs. V. Thara, W/o S. Radhakrishnan, R/o. 83/B, Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 038, Telangana ..... Respondents

3) Hyderabad Pollution Controls Ltd, Regd Office: 90/G, Phase I, I.D.A. Jeedimetla, Hyderabad - 500 055, Telangana ..... Proforma Respondent

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 93/2023 Page 1 of 5 Present: For Appellants : Ms. R. Moneshaa, Advocate For Respondents : Dr. SV. Ramakrishna, Advocate for R1 & R2

JUDGMENT

(Hybrid Mode) 24.10.2024:

Oral Judgment : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):

1. This is a Contempt Appeal, being Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 93 /

2023, which has been preferred by the appellant by invoking the provisions

contained under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, thereby giving a

challenge to the Impugned Order dated 03.10.2023, as it was passed in

Contempt Petition No. 2 / 2021 in CP No. 40 / 2011 (TP No. 50 / HDB / 2016).

By virtue of the Impugned Order, which is under challenge, the learned

Adjudicating Authority had called upon the appellant to file a reply by

09.10.2023 before the Tribunal, giving reasons, as to why an appropriate order

of punishment in accordance with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971, may not be awarded, due to the alleged default committed by the

Appellant in complying with its Order as rendered on 26.10.2017 in CP No. 40 /

2011 (TP No. 50 / 2016).

2. It is to be noted that the learned Adjudicating Authority, while passing

the aforesaid Impugned Order had only called upon the appellant to file a reply

by 09.10.2023, explaining with reasons as to why the appellant may not be

punished for not complying the Order passed by the Tribunal on 26.10.2017 and

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 93/2023 Page 2 of 5 that it had not passed any order of punishment. In accordance with the

provisions of the Contempt Act, an appeal would lie before an Appellate Court

only, as against the order of punishment. We are of the view that at a stage,

when the Court or Tribunal records a prima facie satisfaction, about a default of

an order passed by it, it is only recording a prima facie satisfaction to justify the

necessity of initiating the proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of

Courts Act. That, in itself, may not be construed as if, the Tribunal has drawn an

inference that the Contemnor thus called to file a reply is bound to be held liable

for punishment for contempt, because after submission of the reply, the

contempt proceedings may also be dropped, if it is found that there is no

deliberate or intentional act of contempt by the contemnor.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant, has attempted to interpret the

observation made in Para 28 of the Impugned Order, as if it is a finding

recording that, the appellant has already been held to have violated the order

dated 26.10.2017. In fact, this may not be the correct interpretation which could

be given to the said finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, because had that

been so, the learned Tribunal would have already passed an order of punishment

under Section 12 / 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act instead of calling upon the

appellant to file a reply. Further, since in this case, as per the rules framed under

the Contempt of Courts Act, charges are yet to be framed, after arriving at a

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 93/2023 Page 3 of 5 prima facie opinion of contempt, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has held the

Appellant / Contemnor to be guilty of contempt.

4. Moreover, calling upon the appellant to file a reply in itself amounts to

that, there is no conclusive decision on contempt and that it is only a step taken

for the purposes of arriving at a conclusion, as to whether, at all, under the given

set of facts and circumstances, the punishment under Contempt of Court Act is

required to be levied upon the Contemnor. Since, imposition of punishment not

being the intention at this stage in the instant case, the appeal since being

statutorily barred will not be maintainable and the same is accordingly

dismissed.

5. Upon dismissal of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has

made a request that, the time period thus provided by the Tribunal, as observed

in Para 29 of the Impugned Order, for filing of the reply, may be directed to be

extended, so as to enable the Appellant to file a reply, as called for by the

Impugned Order under challenge.

6. So far as the direction contained in Para 29 of the Impugned Order is

concerned, at this stage the appellant has been called for to file a reply, and

therefore, filing of a reply in-person or through a counsel, in itself, will meet the

objective of the Order dated 03.10.2023. For the purposes of filing of a reply,

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 93/2023 Page 4 of 5 the personal presence of the appellant who is the alleged Contemnor is not

required at this stage.

7. It is only when the Tribunal comes to a conclusion of an apparent,

intentional and deliberate contempt having been committed, then only after

framing of a charge under Rule 13 of the Contempt of Courts Rules, the

appellant may be called upon to appear in-person before the Tribunal, if

required as per law.

8. Subject to the aforesaid exception, the Contempt Appeal i.e. Company

Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 93 / 2023, preferred under Section 421 of the Companies

Act, 2013, would stand dismissed and it is made clear that, it will be open for

the appellant to raise all factual pleas in his defence against the allegation of

contempt levelled against him, subject to filing of reply within 2 weeks, from

the date of receipt of the Certified copy of this Order. Accordingly, all pending

interlocutory applications, if any, would stand closed.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical)

SR / TM / MS

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 93/2023 Page 5 of 5