Jitender Kumar Jain ( Liquidator Of Aaj ... vs Aaj Ka Anand Publications Llp

Jitender Kumar Jain, ....Appellant (Liquidator of Aaj ka Anand Papers Ltd.) Vs.

Aaj Ka Anand Publications LLP & Ors. ...Respondents For Appellant Ms. Pooja Saigal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Dev, Mr. Kanishk Pandey, Ms. Avina Karnad, Mr. Nimesh Dixit, Advocates. For Respondents Mr. Kaushik Mishra, Mr. Shailesh K. Rajona, Advocates for R9

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

22.12.2025: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.09.2025 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Court Room

No.1, Mumbai Bench by which Contempt Application No.16 of 2023 filed by

the Appellant has been rejected. Appellant has been appointed as liquidator

in liquidation proceeding of Corporate Debtor- Aaj Ka Anand Papers Limited.

In the liquidation proceedings, Appellant has filed Contempt Application No.16

of 2023 under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 praying for initiating

contempt proceedings against the contemnors. Prayers made in the

application has been noticed in paragraph 3 of the impugned order which are

as follows:-

2

"3. This Contempt Petition has been filed by Mr. Jitender Kumar Jain, Liquidator of Aaj Ka Anand Papers Limited under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 a/w Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, seeking following reliefs:-

(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to admit and allow the present Petition.

(ii) In exercise of power under Section 425 of the Companies Act,2013 read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to initiate criminal contempt of Court proceedings against the Contemners in accordance with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1970.

(iii) To impose maximum penalty /fine on each of Contemnor as per section 235A of the IBC for creating obstruction in liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor.

(iv) To award the legal cost of these proceedings at actuals to the Corporate Debtor.

(v) To pass such other orders/directions as deemed fit and necessary by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the interest of justice and equity."

3. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application observing that no

case for civil contempt has been made out, hence, the application has been

rejected.

4. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the application made by the

Appellant was not confined to only civil contempt and all powers including the

criminal complaints under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 could have been

excised under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1911 of 2025 3

5. We have heard Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.

6. The allegations made by the Appellant were with respect to series of

articles published in August 2023 against the liquidator in the newspaper for

which Civil Suit No.191 of 2024 has already been filed by the Appellant in the

Delhi High Court which is pending consideration.

7. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that even though

Adjudicating Authority could have exercised all powers vested under the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 while exercising jurisdiction under Section 425

of the Companies Act, 2013 but present was not a case where any further

proceedings were required with respect to publication made in the newspaper

in August 2023. The liquidation proceedings are still pending and more than

two years have elapsed from the alleged publication. We only clarify that any

observations made in the order shall have no effect on the pending proceeding

initiated by the Appellant in the Delhi High Court.

8. With these observations, we close the proceeding.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Anjali/md

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1911 of 2025