Rajendrakumar Padmanabhan Kaimal vs Bank Of Baroda And Ors
- CitationContempt Case (AT) No. 19 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Contempt proceedings lie only for wilful disobedience of a direction contained in the court's order; where the order relied upon contains no direction capable of being disobeyed, a contempt application founded on it is without basis and must be rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Rajendrakumar Padmanabhan Kaimal ...Applicant
Versus
Bank of Baroda & Ors. ...Respondent(s)/Contemnor Present: For Appellant : Mr. KD. Sharma, Advocate For : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Smriti Respondents Churiwal, Mr. Jaiveer Kant, Ms. Atika Chaturvedi, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 18.09.2024: Contempt Case (AT) No. 19 of 2024
This is application has been filed by the IRP praying for initiation of
contempt for non-compliance of the order dated 19.07.2024. Order dated
19.07.2024 of non-compliance of which is claimed is as follows:
"Learned counsel for the IRP seeks clarification of the interim order dated 28.05.2024. By order dated 28.05.2024, we passed following interim order:
"In the meantime, the impugned order dated 15.05.2024 shall remain stayed. As submitted by the appellant, appellant shall submit a better offer to the bank within two weeks which shall be considered in accordance with the policy of the Bank."
Learned counsel for the IRP submits that the impugned order having been stayed, the IRP cannot take any further steps in the CIRP, however, there are going concern payments with regard to the Corporate Debtor.
-2- We clarify that the IRP shall be entitled to run the Corporate Debtor as going concern and take all necessary steps for keeping the Corporate Debtor a going concern and make payments to continue the Corporate Debtor a going concern. Interim order dated 28.05.2024 is clarified as above".
2. The above order does contain any direction to either the appellant or
the Respondent of which non-compliance can be complained of. Contempt
proceedings can be initiated when there is a wilful disobedience of any
direction of the court. We fail to see any direction in the above order on basis
of which contempt can be filed.
3. Filing of contempt on behalf of the IRP is thus, without any basis.
4. Contempt application is rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) sr/nn
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