R. Prasanth vs M/S.Ubc Engineers Pvt. Ltd
- CitationContempt Case (AT) No. 20 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal accepted that a contempt which is continuing in nature is not barred by the one-year limitation in Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, as the principle was drawn from the cited Supreme Court authority, but held that the bar of limitation does not cease to matter altogether: where the contempt petition is filed more than three years after the impugned order, and the order has been left uncomplied with, the Court may, in the exercise of its discretion, decline to initiate contempt proceedings, since initiation of contempt is a matter of judicial discretion even where contempt is established.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Contempt Case (AT) No. 20 of 2022 In Company Appeal (AT) No. 256 of 2017 IN THE MATTER OF: UBC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Applicant Versus R Prasanth ...Respondent/Contemnor Present: For Appellant : Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Mr. Arun Pal, Mr. Saurabh K. Mishra, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Ms. Tuhina Misra, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Rahul, Proxy Counsel ORDER
16.03.2023: Heard Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant. The
present application has been filed under Section 425 of the Companies Act,
2013 mainly on allegation of disobedience to the Judgment passed by this
tribunal in CA (AT) No. 256 of 2017 dated 09.07.2019. By the said Judgment
the appeal filed by R Prasanth/opposite party was dismissed with detailed
reason. While dismissing the appeal it was directed that Appellant shall pay
each of the five Respondents cost of the appeal which shall be Rs. 50,000/-
each (Total Rs. 2,50,000/-) it has been argued by Mr. Tiwari, Ld. Counsel that
despite direction of this Tribunal which is continuing till date the contemnor
has not complied with this order and as such he is in contempt. On being
asked as to under Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act, period of limitation
is one year and the present application has been filed after more than three
years, Mr. Tiwari, Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on a Judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in 1989, Supplementary (2) SCC 418 in the matter of -2- 'Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar vs. Kalu Ram and Ors.' and has drawn our
attention to paragraph 7 of the Judgment which is quoted herein below.
"7. Another point was taken about limitation of this application under Section 20 of the Act. Section 20 states that no court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In this case, the present application was filed on or about November 3, 1988 as appears from the affidavit in support of the application. The contempt consisted inter alia, of the act of not giving the possession by force of the order of the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Narnaul dated November 3, 1988 (sic February 12, 1988). Therefore, the application was well within the period of one year. Failure to give possession, if it amounts to a contempt in a situation of this nature is a continuing wrong. There was no scope for application of Section 20 of the Act".
On the aforesaid Judgment it has been argued that if the offence in contempt is in continuation, bar under Section 20 will not come into play and as such it has been prayed to initiate contempt proceeding against opposite party/contemnor R Prasanth.
Before proceeding, it is necessary to indicate that contempt is always in between court and contemnor. Even though in case court is satisfied that one has committed contempt, discretion lies with the court either to proceed or drop the proceeding. However, in the present case fact remains that Judgment was passed long back on 09.07.2019 whereas the present petition was filed on 04.08.2022, i.e. more than three years from the date of Judgment. Normally, for initiating contempt proceeding under Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act, one year upper limit time has been prescribed.
Contempt Case (AT) No. 20 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) No. 256 of 2017 -3- The present application was filed not only after expiry of one year but after expiry of three years. Though we may not dispute the submission of Ld. Counsel for the Applicant that contempt is continuing but considering the fact that appeal filed by contemnor was already dismissed with reasoned order and thereafter direction was issued which admittedly has not been complied with but we are of the opinion that after expiry of three years in view of facts and circumstances of the present case it would not be appropriate to initiate contempt proceeding. Accordingly there is no reason to pass any positive order in the present petition. The petition stands disposed of.
This order was passed in the presence of Mr. Rahul, Ld. Proxy Counsel for opposite party No. 1/ contemnor.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
sr/gc
Contempt Case (AT) No. 20 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) No. 256 of 2017
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