Mauli Financial Services Private ... vs Dinesh Kanthilal Rathi & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Mauli Financial Services Private Limited ...Appellants Versus Dinesh Kanthilal Rathi and Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Dhruv Dewan, Mr. Kumar Saumitra and Mr. Varad Kolhi, Advocates. For Respondents : None.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

28.07.2026: The appellant, before us has invoked the jurisdiction of

Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 to be read with Section 19 of the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The appellant has questioned the impugned

order of 10.07.2026, that has been passed by the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai Bench,

in Contempt Application 14(MB)/2026 as preferred in CP No. 264(MB)/2025.

The tenacity of arguing Ld. Counsel for the appellant had been that, as a

matter of fact there had been two proceedings before Ld. NCLT i.e. in the

shape of Company Petition No. 267/2025 and Company Petition No.

264/2025, which were of independent nature. Though the order happens to

be passed on the same on 30.01.2026.

2. Alleging contempt of the order passed on 30.01.2026 in CP No.

264(MB)/2025. A contempt petition was drawn, by way of Contempt

Application no. 14(MB)/2026. It is alleged by the appellant that the Contempt

Application no. 14(MB)/2026 is concerned that may not be read as to be a proceedings drawn in relation to the violation or non-compliance of an order

dated 30.01.2026 that was passed in CP/267(MB)2025. Hence he submits

that in a contempt proceedings, which were pending before the Ld. NCLT he

may not be having a direct concern for the purpose of drawing of a contempt

proceedings against him because there was no violation alleged by drawing an

independent proceedings for non-compliance of the order dated 30/01/2026.

3. Apart from it he also submits that the Tribunal was seized with the

proceedings under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013, which also

attracts the application of the provision contained under Contempt of Court

Act of 1971. Another question that could be falling for consideration before us

is as to whether at all. When the Tribunal is seized with its contempt

jurisdiction, whether it at all could passed an order afresh distinct the order

of which contempt is alleged before it, which is altogether different in nature

and context, rather than confining itself to the provisions contained

restricting for exercising powers under Section 12 to be read with Section 14

of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

4. In the nutshell of the argument, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant

submits that, since in a Cont.A.14(MB)/2026 he had no concern, so the order

impugned that is 10.07.2026, as a matter of fact is treated to be ex-parte

coupled with the facts that there is nothing on record to show, that the Ld.

Tribunal has ever drawn a suo motto proceedings by passing any specific

order with regards thereto, as against the present appellant for non-

2 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) No. 289 of 2026 compliance of the order dated 30.01.2026 that was passed in CP No. 267

(MB)/ 2025.

5. In that eventuality, we are of the view that, after hearing the Ld. Counsel

for the parties that the impugned order dated 10.07.2026, as it has been

rendered in Application No. 14/MB/2026, cannot be read as to be

proceedings drawn for non-compliance of the order dated 30.01.2026. For

that purpose the applicant to the contempt proceedings will have to drawn his

own independent proceedings and that should have been taken independently

by the Ld. Tribunal upon exercisable its jurisdiction.

6. Owing to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, the

impugned order of 10.07.2026, as it has been passed in Cont.A.14(MB)/2026

would stand closed only qua the appellants. However, it is made clear that the

order, which has been passed by us today will not prejudice the rights of the

respondents to initiate and appropriate contempt proceedings in accordance

with law qua non-compliance of the order dated 30.01.2026, as it was

rendered in CP No. 267/2025. Accordingly, appeal would stand allowed and

all interlocutory applications, if any, would stand closed.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) harleen/Ravi 3 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) No. 289 of 2026