Soumitra Banerjee & Anr vs Asher Ebrahim Melamed & Anr
- CitationContempt Case (AT) No. 05 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The interim order of the Tribunal restraining withdrawal, spending or diversion of company funds pending appeal merges into the Tribunal's final order once the appeal is disposed of on merits, so that after such disposal the interim order no longer subsists as an independent basis for contempt proceedings. Where the matter has, after the final disposal of the appeal, been remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for liquidation, the Tribunal will not entertain a contempt petition founded on the interim order; the applicant's proper remedy lies in an application before the Adjudicating Authority, which will decide the grievance in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Asher Ebrahim Melamed ...Applicant. Versus Mr. Soumitra Banerjee & Anr. ...Contemnors. Present: For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Kapoor, Advocate. For Respondent: None. ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
13.01.2021 The Applicant has filed this Contempt Case against the Respondent Mr. Soumitra Banerjee and Ms. Shampa Banerjee as Contemnors. The Applicant claims that the Respondents had filed Company Appeal (AT) No. 100 of 2018 in which the Order dated 25th April 2018 was passed which reads as under:
"Mr. Deepak Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 1st Respondent prays for and allowed 10 days' time to file reply. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed by the Appellant within 4 days thereof.
Post the matter on 11th May, 2018.
Until further order, the Interim Order passed on 9th April, 2018 shall continue. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent will not withdraw or spend or divert any amount of the Company except for day-to-day functioning of the company and not for any other purpose."
2 2. The Learned Counsel submits that in the operative part where direction is
that 'Respondent' will not withdraw it was actually meant for the Appellants Mr.
Soumitra Banerjee and Ms. Shampa Banerjeee who were in the management of
the Company.
3. The Learned Counsel submits that in spite of such orders, the
Respondents Mr. Soumitra Banerjee and Ms. Shampa Banerjee caused losses to
the Company and kept the concerned property vacant causing loss to the
company and thereafter have leased out the property to a person who is of
doubtful standing and have caused loss to the company. This contempt is
alleged.
4. It is noticed that the Company Appeal (AT) No. 100 of 2018 itself has been
disposed on merits. The copy of the Judgment shows that the present Applicant
Asher Ebrahim Melamed had filed Application for oppression and
mismanagement and the Ld. NCLT had after considering the matter allowed the
Company to liquidate its assets. This order has been upheld in the order dated
12th March, 2020 while disposing the Company Appeal (AT) No. 100 of 2018.
5. Considering the fact that the Interim Impugned Order would merge in the
final order of this Tribunal, and the fact that now the matter is before the Ld.
NCLT for the purposes of liquidation, we do not find any reason to entertain the
present Contempt Case before this Tribunal. The Applicant may, if so desired,
move an Application before the Ld. NCLT which will decide the same one way or
the other as per provisions of law.
Contempt Case (AT) No. 05 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT) No. 100 of 2018 3
With these observations, the Application stands disposed of.
[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. V.P. Singh] Member (Technical)
Basant B./md.
Contempt Case (AT) No. 05 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT) No. 100 of 2018
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