Mr. Sandeep Jain & Ors vs Ipe- M/S Ducturus Resolution ...

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 508 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Sandeep Jain & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Ducturus Resolution Professional Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Mr. Rajat Joneja, Ms. Sakshi Kapoor and Ms. Tina Aneja, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Abhirup Das Gupta, Mr. Rahul Gupta, Mr. Rahul Dadhich and Ms. Vagisha Tiwari, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

17.03.2026: Heard Counsel for the appellant and Ld. Counsel for the

respondent herein.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order passed by National

Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench-IV dated 09.03.2026 in contempt

petition No. 30 of 2025. Adjudicating Authority has issued direction in

paragraph- 20 of the order to the following effect:-

"20. We hold that Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have wilfully disobeyed the order dated 11.06.2025 passed by this Adjudicating Authority and are thus liable to be proceeded against for contempt. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the apparent act of perjury committed by the contemnors. The Contemnors are directed to purge the contempt by complying with the order dated 11.06.2025 within one week, failing which appropriate action will be taken against them."

3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that Adjudicating Authority in

the impugned order has observed that despite final opportunity dated 25.08.2025. The respondent had failed to file the reply and the right of

respondent to file reply was closed. It is submitted that the said observation is

not recording to the record. Appellant after their right to file reply was closed

has filed an IA- 4970/2025 which was disposed of permitting the reply filed

by the appellant be taken on record. It is submitted that the Adjudicating

Authority has not adverted to the reply which was filed by the appellant and

order impugned was passed without consideration of reply and on the wrong

footing that the right of the reply has been closed. Ld. Counsel for the RP does

not dispute that reply was filed by the appellant was taken on record but

there is no consideration of the reply in the impugned order.

4. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. In paragraph-4 of the order following has been observed:-

"4. On 25.08.2025, this Adjudicating Authority directed compliance with the order dated 13.08.2025 and granted a final opportunity to the Respondents to the file their reply within three days. Thereafter, on 15.09.2025, it was recorded that despite directions dated 13.08.2025 granting one week's time and the final opportunity dated 25.08.2025 granting three day's time, the Respondents had failed to file their reply. Accordingly, the right of the Respondents to file reply was closed."

6. On 10.10.2025 that is subsequent to 15.09.2025 in IA No. 4970/2025

following order was passed by Adjudicating Authority:-

"ORDER IA-4970/2025 Ms. Pooja M. Sehgal, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner is present physically whereas Ld. Counsel for the RP is present through video conferencing. Ld. Counsel for the RP submits that they have received the copy of the reply filed in Contempt Petition along with the present application and they have no objection if the reply is 2 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 508 of 2026 taken on record only to the extent to permit the applicant to put the brief note. Considering the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of both the parties, this Tribunal is inclined to partly allow the present application. Reply is taken on record along with IA. Applicant/Contemnor is directed to file a brief note with regard to Contempt Application within three days with an advance copy to the other side. Accordingly, IA- 4970/2025 is partly allowed and stands disposed of."

7. The above order clearly indicate that reply filed by the appellant was

taken on record and parties were also permitted to file brief note with regard

to contempt application. The observation made in paragraph-4 that right to

file reply has been closed obviously is incorrect. Adjudicating Authority has

not taken into consideration subsequent order 10.10.2025 by which reply was

taken on record. In view of the above, order impugned cannot be sustained

and we set aside on the above ground alone. The contempt petition no.

30/2025 is revived before the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration

in accordance with law.

With the above observations, appeal is disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD

3 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 508 of 2026