Kiran Shah Rp Of Ksl And Industries ... vs Enforcement Directorate Kolkata
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.817 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The interim order of stay in a company appeal does not, by its terms, stay an earlier attachment order that remains subsisting, and so it cannot be read as staying that attachment. Conduct by the respondent that is consistent with a subsisting attachment order, and that does not purport to act against the terms of the interim stay, does not amount to wilful disobedience of that interim order. Submissions going to the merits of the attachment's legality are reserved for determination in the pending appeal and are not decided in contempt proceedings.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Kiran Shah ...Appellant RP for KSL and Industries Ltd.
Versus
Enforcement Directorate, Kolkata ...Respondent
For Appellant: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Ms. Rajshree, Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai and Ms. Vasudha Sen, Advocates
For Respondent: Mr. Zoheb Hossain and Ms. Tulika Gupta, Advocates
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
01.12.2021 Heard Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, learned Senior Counsel for
the Appellant and Mr. Zoheb Hossain appearing for the Respondent
Department. This Application has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the
interim Order dated 25.10.2021 passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.817
of 2021. Company Appeal 817 of 2021 was filed against the Order of
Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench)
dated 31st December, 2020, through RP Kiran Shah. RP has filed an
Application to quash and set aside the attachment of the property of the
Corporate Debtor by Enforcement Directorate made vide Order dated
08.05.2019. The Application was rejected against which this Appeal No.817
of 2021 has been filed.
2
This Tribunal while entertaining the Appeal, has stayed the Impugned
Order. The grievance of learned Counsel for the Applicant is that even after
interim Order dated 25.10.2021, officials of the Enforcement Directorate went
to the property and on 11th November, 2021 asked the sub-lessees to pay
amount or rent to the Enforcement Department. He submits that this
amounts to contempt of wilful disobedience of the Order.
The Interim Order passed by this Tribunal on 25.10.2021 cannot be
read to mean that this Court has stayed the attachment Order dated
08.05.2019. The attachment Order still subsisting, we don't find the action of
the Respondent wilful disobedience of the Order dated 25.10.2021. Learned
Senior Counsel Mr. Ramji Srinivasan submits that the attachment was wholly
illegal, which issues have been raised and pending in Appeal. We express no
opinion on the submissions which have been made on merits which are to be
looked into in the Appeal itself.
In view of the above, we find no reason to continue with these
proceedings. Contempt Application is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) rs/nn
Contempt Case (AT) No.32 of 2021 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.817 of 2021
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