Mr. Kunhimahin Moideen Kunhi vs M/S Vintage Hotels Private Limited Rep ...

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.50/2026 (IA Nos.705 & 706/2026) In the matter of: Mr. Kunhimahin Moideen Kunhi Ranimeyyamai Tower, 3rd Block 2H MRC Nagar, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028. ...Appellant V M/s. Vintage Hotels Private Limited Rep by its Managing Director, No. 9 Mission Road, Bangalore - 560 027.

Mr. Ahamed Nizar Moideen Kunhi Kunhimahin Flat No. M-77, 7th Floor, Diamond District Apartments Old Airport Road, Kodihalli, Bangalore - 560 008.

Mr. Mohammed Shareef Moideen Kunhi Kunhimahin S/o Late TB. Kunhimahin Haji Aged about 54 years Residing at Padhoor House, Post Thekkil Kasaragod, Kerala - 671 541. ...Respondents Present : For Appellant : Mr. P.H. Arvindh Pandian, Senior Advocate For Mr. Sandeep Kumar Ambalavanan, Advocate ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 29.04.2026:

This Company Appeal is reported to be defective, carrying certain

minor defects pertaining to the non-supply of certain clear pages and filing

of the hard copy. The defects, as pointed out would stand overruled.

Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.50/2026 Page 1 of 2

Looking to the nature of the dispute, which has been agitated by the

Appellant as against the impugned order, which reads as under: -

"1. Heard Ld. Counsels for the parties

2. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has filed a memo vide Dy.No.1674 on 06.04.2026

3. On the last date, it was directed by this Tribunal that if the settlement does not happen, contemnors should be present physically.

4. Let the Contemnors appear physical as per the last date direction.

5. List the case on 29.04.2026".

The nature of the order, which has been passed by the Learned

Tribunal is an order passed in the contempt proceedings, whereby the

Appellant has only been called upon to appear physically before the Learned

Tribunal. The prerogative of the Tribunal to call upon a contemnor to appear

is only for the purposes to solicit the defence and to prove its conduct qua to

act of contempt, and there is no immediate prejudice caused to the Appellant

merely because of a direction for appearance.

Hence, the Comp App (AT) (CH) No.50/2026 lacks merit, and the

same is accordingly dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any,

would stand closed.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical) VG/MS/AK

Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.50/2026 Page 2 of 2