SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 22

A. M. KHANWILKAR, B. R. GAVAI
RAMA NARANG – Appellant
Versus
RAMESH NARANG – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Advocate, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Advocate, Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, Advocate, Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Advocate, Mr. Salim Inamdar, Advocate, Ms. Sweena Nair, Advocate, M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, Ms. Sheena Taqui, Advocate, Mr. Kshitij Vaibhav, Advocate, Ms. Sauvrna Dubey, Advocate, Mr. Shiv vinayak Gupta, Advocate, Mrs. Bina Gupta, Advocate

Judgement Key Points

Case Overview

  • Supreme Court of India judgment delivered by Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and B.R. Gavai on 19-01-2021 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 92 of 2008. [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred]
  • Involves family dispute over management of Narang International Hotel Limited (NIHL) between petitioner Rama Narang (father) and respondents Ramesh Narang and Rajesh Narang (sons from first marriage). [1000735950001][1000735950086]
  • Arises from prior consent orders of Supreme Court dated 12-12-2001 and 08-01-2002 incorporating "Minutes of Consent Order" for joint management of NIHL by Rama, Ramesh, and Rajesh as directors. [1000735950002][1000735950003] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Background Litigation

  • Original disputes settled via family arrangement; suits transferred to Supreme Court under Article 139A and disposed per consent terms, dropping prior contempt proceedings. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Consent terms mandated joint directorship, no removal of directors, joint management/control, decisions requiring mutual consent of Rama and Ramesh/Rajesh, joint bank operations (esp. >Rs.10 lakhs), and equal remuneration. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Petitioner filed Contempt Petition (C) No. 148/2003 alleging violations of consent terms by respondents; Supreme Court in 2007 convicted respondents of civil contempt under Section 2(b) Contempt of Courts Act but suspended sentence to avoid company chaos, directing compliance. [1000735950010][1000735950011] (!) (!) (!)

Subsequent Developments

  • Respondents filed Company Petition No.47/2008 before Company Law Board (CLB) under Sections 397/398 Companies Act citing petitioner's non-cooperation causing deadlock, unpaid salaries, employee unrest. [1000735950014][1000735950015]
  • CLB appointed Justice Arvind V. Savant (Retd.) as Facilitator on 10-04-2008 for operational matters (e.g., employees, suppliers); powers enhanced in 2011 to decide disputes, sign documents if needed. (!) (!) [1000735950026]
  • Supreme Court orders (2009-2016) appointed independent directors/consultants (e.g., H.P. Ranina, Habib Rehman) for statutory compliance but explicitly preserved Facilitator's role without interference. [1000735950019][1000735950020][1000735950021][1000735950022][1000735950029] (!)
  • CLB rejected petitioner's bid to discharge Facilitator, imposed costs; later replaced facilitators (e.g., H.S. Acharya with Ranina in 2015). [1000735950025][1000735950027] (!) (!) (!)

Petitioner's Contempt Allegations

  • Petitioner claimed CLB proceedings and Facilitator orders violated Supreme Court's 2001/2002 consent orders and 2007 contempt judgment by excluding him from management. [1000735950016][1000735950032][1000735950041]
  • Alleged repetition of prior contemptuous acts (e.g., unilateral contracts, withholding info, executive appointments). [1000735950008] (!) (!) (!) (!)

Respondents' Defense

  • Petitioner's non-cooperation stalled company; invoked CLB legitimately under Sections 397/398/403 for company welfare (3000+ employees). [1000735950049][1000735950035][1000735950036]
  • All post-2008 decisions per Facilitator; no veto intended via consent terms; petitioner's son competes with NIHL. [1000735950009][1000735950040]
  • Bandra property (40 Pali Hill) is company asset; 30-04-2019 board resolution (per Facilitator) approved sale for financial crisis. [1000735950030] (!) (!)

Supreme Court's Findings and Decision

  • No wilful disobedience of Supreme Court orders; respondents' CLB recourse lawful under Companies Act Sections 397/398/403; interim CLB orders binding pending jurisdiction challenge. [1000735950046] (!) (!) [1000735950062][1000735950063][1000735950065][1000735950067][1000735950075][1000735950080]
  • Petitioner raised but did not pursue jurisdiction objection; CLB noted prima facie validity under Section 399. [1000735950078] (!)
  • Contempt requires proof of deliberate, intentional breach; here, compelling circumstances justified actions for company interests. [1000735950072] (!) [1000735950073] (!) (!) (!)
  • Dismissed contempt petition; IA No.87565/2019 (vacate Bandra property) not entertained; parties relegated to NCLT (post-CLB transfer). [1000735950081][1000735950083][1000735950084][1000735950085]

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. The present contempt petition arises out of an unfortunate family dispute between a father on one hand and his two sons from his first wife on the other hand. This family dispute has given rise to number of proceedings, some of which have even reached up to this Court.

2. Factual matrix necessary for the adjudication of the present case is thus:-

    The petitioner in the contempt petition Rama Narang was married to Smt. Motia. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Ramesh Narang and Rajesh Narang so also Rakesh Narang are sons of the petitioner and Smt. Motia. The petitioner and Smt. Motia divorced in 1963. The petitioner thereafter married Smt. Mona. Out of the said wedlock, two sons Rohit and Rahul as well as a daughter Ramona were born.

3. In a previous round of litigation between these parties, the respondent No.1- Ramesh Narang had approached this Court by filing a Contempt Petition (C) Nos.265-67 of 1999 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 209 of 1998 in Civil Appeal Nos.366 of 1998, 603 of 1998 and 605 of 1998. The present petitioner Rama Narang was respondent No.1 in the said proceedings. This Court passed the following order in the said proceedings on 2nd November


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top