Mrs. Mizba Xec vs Central Bank Of India & Ors

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App (AT) (Ins) No. 284 of 2025 & I.A. No. 1098 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Mizba Xec ...Appellants Versus Central Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate. For Respondents :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

07.03.2025: I.A. No. 1098 of 2025

This is an application praying for 15 days' delay in filing the appeal. The

Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is living in Goa and

due to health reason she was unable to seek timely legal advice and applicant

could able to approach after a week or two and thereafter time was taken in

obtaining legal advice and guidance. We find cause sufficient. Delay

condoned.

Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 284 of 2025

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

Authority dated 13.12.2024 by which contempt case no. 52/2024 filed by the

applicant personal guarantor has been rejected. Section 95 proceedings were

initiated against the personal guarantor the appellant by SREI Equipment

Finance Limited dated 09.02.2022. In the said proceedings an IA No.

5688/2023 was filed by the appellant praying for interim relief in which IA

Adjudicating Authority has passed an order on 19.12.2023 noticing the consent of the counsel for the bank that they have no objection if status quo

is directed to be maintained only in respect to serial no.1 property. It is

submitted that after the aforesaid interim order was passed the bank

subsequently has already issued the sale certificate on 12.12.2023. Appellant

thereafter filed the contempt application no. 52/2024 initiating contempt

against the Chief Manager of Central Bank of India for violating the interim

order dated 19.12.2023. The said application has been considered and

rejected by Adjudicating Authority and Adjudicating Authority while rejecting

the contempt application the cost of Rs.1 Lakh has been imposed on the

applicant.

3. Shri Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the

present was a case where the Central Bank itself has consented for status

quo order of 19.12.2023 and stated that the sale is yet to be finalised whereas

Sale Certificate was issued on 12.12.2023 itself. It is submitted that present

was not a case of imposition of any cost or any observation against the

counsel who appeared for the applicant.

4. We have considered the submissions of appellant and perused the

records. According to submissions made by the appellant, applicant itself it is

clear that sale certificate was issued on 12.12.2023 that is prior to interim

order was passed which was brought subsequently before the Bench. The

bank has also filed a reply to the IA which was filed by the appellant praying

for interim relief in which order of 19.12.2023 was passed and reply to the

2 of 3 Comp. App (AT) (Ins) No. 284 of 2025 & I.A. No. 1098 of 2025 contempt. Even in the Reply to the contempt application in which paragraph-

13 following was pleaded by the bank:-

"13. The Respondent Bank states that said property belonged to SM Engineering Works as Partnership Firm and not to Mrs. Mizba Xec her individual capacity and hence the period of moratorium as stated U/s. 96 of IBC Code, 2016 shall not be applicable to this Sale Notice."

From the materials brought on record it appears that the property asset was

in the name of SM Engineering Works- a partnership firm of which appellant

was a partner. The bank has pleaded that the asset did not belong to the

personal guarantor the appellant hence moratorium was not applicable.

5. Be as it may, in the facts of the present case, we are of the view that

Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in not proceeding with

contempt proceedings against the Central Bank of India. We do not find any

infirmity in the order of the Adjudicating Authority in so far as contempt

petition is rejected. However, in facts of the present case are of the view that

ends of justice be served in deleting the cost imposed on the appellant as well

as observations made against the counsel in the impugned order. Subject to

above, the appeal is dismissed. We make it clear that our consideration and

observations in this appeal is only with respect to the contempt application.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN

3 of 3 Comp. App (AT) (Ins) No. 284 of 2025 & I.A. No. 1098 of 2025