Mr.Ghanshyam Das Mundra vs Sai Ramakrishna Karuturi
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 825 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on a single point: where an appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn with an express observation that no liberty is granted to challenge the same impugned order (while preserving the appellant's freedom to settle with the respondent), the dismissal order itself does not thereby found a contempt; a contempt application premised on such a dismissal is not maintainable in law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
13.04.2022: There is no representation on the side of the Applicant in
Contempt Case (AT) No. 23 of 2019 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 825 of
2019 at the time of calling of the matter. However, there is representation on
the side of 'Axis Bank' through Mr. Ankur Singh, Learned Counsel.
It is brought to the fore that the instant Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.
825 of 2019 was dismissed as withdrawn by this Tribunal on 22.10.2019. At
the time of dismissing the instant Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 825 of 2019,
this Tribunal had observed that no liberty being granted to challenge the very
same impugned order but the rider was to the effect that the `order of
dismissal of the Appeal as withdrawn' would not come in the way of the
`Appellant' to settle the matter with the 'Respondent'.
In view of the above, this `Tribunal' is prima facie of the view that no
Contempt will lie against the `Appeal being dismissed as withdrawn', by virtue
of the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by this `Appellate Tribunal'.
Contempt Case (AT) No. 23 of 2019 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 825 of 2019 1 Viewed in the above perspective, the instant Contempt Case (AT) No. 23
of 2019 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 825 of 2019 is dismissed as not
maintainable in law. No Costs.
[Justice M.Venugopal] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical)
shashi/gc
Contempt Case (AT) No. 23 of 2019 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 825 of 2019 2
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