Mrs. Jayshreeben Nareshchandra ... vs Sanjay J Shah Liquidator
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1321
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal's reasoning rests on the following principles, in the order the Tribunal takes them: First, an order passed in a contempt application, which directs the subjects of the impugned order to answer serious allegations of diversion of funds and to appear before the Tribunal, though those allegations were never pleaded or prayed for in the contempt proceedings or the relevant application, is an order that operates on a person who is aggrieved by it and who is therefore entitled to appeal against it under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; the Tribunal rejected the objection that such an appellant is not aggrieved. Second, the Tribunal rejected the submission that an appeal lies only under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, holding that an order made in proceedings that are not confined to contempt, and that were brought under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, is appealable under the Code. Third, where the Tribunal has passed an order that exceeds the scope of the pleadings and prayers before it, and has directed notice to persons not parties to the contempt petition on allegations that belong properly to a separate application, the appropriate course is to set aside that order and remand the matter so that the contempt petition is decided in accordance with law and the separately filed application, which carries the same allegations, is considered on its own pleadings and prayers.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1321 & 1322 of 2024 & I.A. No. 4794, 4795, 4796, 4797, 4798, 4799, 4800, 4801 of 2024
IN THE MATTER OF: Jayshreeben Nareshchandra Intwala, Director (Power Suspended) & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Sanjay J Shah, Liquidator ...Respondent
Present: For Appellants : Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Himanshu Satija, ms. Neha Mehta Satija, Mr. Harsh Saxena & Ms. Ridhi Ranjan.
For Respondent : Mr. Sourit Arora & Mr. Sanjay Shah, Liquidator.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
[Per : Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Oral)]
18.12.2024 This appeal is filed by the Suspended Director of the
Corporate Debtor under Section 61 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code,
2016 ('Code') to challenge the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the
National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Court-2 ('Tribunal') in Cont.
A/3 (AHM) 2023 & IA/ 785 (AHM) 2023.
2. In brief, AKZO Nobel India Ltd. filed an application under Section 7 of
the Code against the Corporate Debtor, namely, Jivanjoyt Motors Pvt. Ltd.
which was admitted on 20.10.2022. Ajay Kumar Jain was appointed as IRP
and ultimately appointed as RP on 18.11.2022.
3. The RP filed an application bearing IA No. 1070 of 2022 under Section
19(2) r/w Section 60(5) of the Code in which the following prayers were
made
"b. Pass an order giving direction to the Respondents to extend assistance and cooperation to the Interim Resolution Professional and provide all required documents as per letter dated 22.10.2022 and email dated 27.10.2022 of IRP.
c. Direct the respondent No. 1,2 & 3 to handover the possession of all assets and records of the corporate debtor to the IRP.
d. Pass such further and other reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
4. In this application, the Tribunal had passed the following order on
02.01.2023:-
"Learned PCS for Suspended Management states that if the RP gives list of the documents which are required, the Suspended Management will provide them. The statement is recorded.
We further direct Suspended Management to cooperate with the RP in successful completion of the CIRP in time bound manner.
Accordingly, the IA is allowed and stands disposed of."
5. The RP filed a contempt petition bearing Contempt Petition No. 03 of
2023 on 20.01.2023 in which he alleged that :-
"4. That during the 4th CoC meeting which was held on 13.01.2023, the suspended director assured the RP that she will provide all required documents etc. by Monday i.e., on 16.01.2023. RP had also reminded by email dated 13.01.2023 after the CoC meeting on 13.01.2023 to all suspended directors. However, the contemnors/ respondents have provided partly accounting datas to the forensic auditor and few documents only on 17.01.2023 i.e. statutory notices of GST, Income Tax and PF Departments, Banks' notices, Creditors/ employees' notices, Banks' details (without ph. No. email ids of officers) and Old bank statements, PAN card, Sale deed of one immovable property situated at Navsari, Gujarat."
The prayer made in the aforesaid contempt petition is as under :-
"1. Initiate contempt proceeding against the alleged contemnors/respondents for wilfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated 02.01.2023 of this Hon'ble Tribunal passed in the IA No. 1070/2023 - U/S 19(2)."
6. While this contempt petition was pending, the RP filed an application
bearing IA No. 785 of 2023 under Section 60(5) r/w Rule 11 of the NCLT
Rules, 2016 with the following prayers :-
"1. Issue direction to the sub-registrar being Respondent No. 7 to cancel all 7 sale deeds, which has been marked as Annexure-7 and Annexure-8 (Colly) in this application with respect to building situated at Jivanjyot Theater Compound, Udhna Main Road, Surat - 394210. Alternatively, pass the necessary order for cancellation of all 7 sale deeds through competent court of jurisdiction.
2. Initiate proceedings against the respondents u/s 74 of the IBC for violation of moratorium order dated 20.10.2022 of this Hon'ble NCLT and Section 14 of the IBC.
3. Issue the necessary direction to the respondent No. 4 and 5 to hand over the physical and peaceful possession of the building situated at Dream Honda", Jivanjyot Theater Compound, Udhna Main Road, Surat-394210 to the RP."
7. The Tribunal passed the Impugned Order while referring to both Cont.
A/3 (AHM) 2023 & IA/ 785 (AHM) 2023. The Impugned Order read as
under :-
"Heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant. He pointed out that the suspended management had diverted by cash various transactions which are of serious in nature and listed the entries. He is directed to serve notice upon both the CAs who had given the certification of cash entries, made to file a reply and appear before this Tribunal. He is further directed to serve a notice on the CA who had also certified the Statutory Audit reports of the corporate debtor. List for further consideration on 16.07.2024."
8. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.
9. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Impugned Order has
been passed without there being any pleadings or prayer in both the
application bearing I.A. No. 1070 of 2022 and I.A. No. 785 of 2023 and
therefore it is only a roving enquiry ordered by the Tribunal that too in a
contempt application which is not permissible because in a matter of
contempt, the court is only concerned with the order which has been passed
and alleged to have been violated that too wilfully.
10. Counsel for the Appellant, during the course of hearing, has produced
an application bearing IA No. 1865 of 2024. It is pertinent to mention that
the CD has been pushed into liquidation vide order dated 27.09.2023 and
the Liquidator has filed IA No. 1865 of 2024, impleading as many as 12
Respondents therein including Chartered Accountant Mr. Vishal Kumar
Shaw of VK Shaw & Co. Chartered Accountant Mr. Ankit Surana and Mr.
Priyank Vakaria (allegedly Chartered Accountants of the Corporate Debtor).
These CA's have been impleaded as parties because they are the CA of the
Corporate Debtor. The prayers made in this application are as follows :
"a) Your lordship may be pleased to pass appropriate orders under section 44 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, directing respondents to restore payment of Rs. 6,62,95,255/- to Corporate Debtor;
b) That Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass such order as it deems appropriate as per the provisions of Section 43 read with Section 44 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Respondents and;
c) That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass appropriate orders/ direction as it deems appropriate as per the provisions of Section 66 read with Section 67 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Respondents to make contribution of Rs. 20,94,20,993/- to Corporate Debtor;
d) Your Lordship may be pleased to pass an order directing respondents to give possession of assets of the Corporate Debtor i.e. 18 vehicles and cash of the CD company to the Applicant.
e) Your Lordship may be pleased to pass an order directing respondents to provide all the documents/ information/ clarification as sought by applicant and attached I as Annexure-T in the present application f) Your Lordship may be pleased to pass an order in respect to illegal payment of Rs. 10,46,40,362/- in cash as salary, directing respondents no. 1 to 3 to make such contribution to the Corporate Debtor as deem fit by Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority.
g) Your Lordship may be pleased to refer to IBBI for initiating criminal proceedings against respondents no. 1 to 3 under Section 236 of the Code for violation of Section 68 (i)(b), Section 70(1)(b) and Section 71 of IB Code, 2016
h) Your Lordship may be pleased to grant any other relief or relief as may deem fit in the interest of justice."
11. It is submitted that the said application was listed for hearing on
16.12.2024 and has now been adjourned to 10.02.2025 with the following
order :-
"IA/1865(AHM)2024 Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to issue notice to the respondent. List for further consideration 10.02.2025."
12. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Respondent has
made the same allegation in the application which has been noticed by the
Learned Tribunal in the Impugned Order, in which notice has been issued
to the CA's who are not a party to the contempt petition as well. It is
submitted that it would be just and expedient, if the Impugned Order is set
aside and the Respondent may proceed with the application bearing IA No
1865 of 2024 pending before the Tribunal in which the Tribunal may pass
order in accordance with law.
13. Although Counsel for the Respondent has raised objection to the
submissions made by the Appellant and also submitted that the Appellant
is not an aggrieved person but keeping in view the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, much less the fact that the opening line of the Impugned
Order says that the "suspended management had diverted by cash various
transactions which are of serious in nature". We are of the view that the
Appellant is an aggrieved person who has to answer to this allegation made
against him. Counsel for the Respondent has further submitted that the
appeal is only maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act,
1971. We, however, do not agree with this submission.
14. Therefore, keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the order dated 10.06.2024 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded
back to the Tribunal to proceed with the contempt in accordance with law
and also decide the application bearing IA/1865(AHM)2024 filed by the
Respondent in which same prayers have been made.
15. In the end, while passing this order, it is hereby specifically
mentioned that we have not made any observation on the merit of this case
in any manner.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)
Sim/RR
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