Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, B. R. GAVAI, JJ.
RAMA NARANG - Petitioners
Versus
RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS - Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 92 of 2008 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 148 of 2003 in Civil Appeal No. 366 of 1998
Decided on : 19-01-2021
Companies Act - Sections 397, 398 and 399 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 139-A and 142 - Contempt petition - Family dispute - Shares - Petitioner in contempt petition was married - Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. so also are sons of petitioner - Petitioner and Smt. Motia divorced in 1963 - Petitioner thereafter married - Out of said wedlock, two sons as well as a daughter Ramona were born - They filed a document styled it as "MINUTES OF CONSENT ORDER" signed by all parties - Appearing on both sides submitted that all the parties have signed this document - Today except Mona Narang and Ramona Narang (two ladies), all rest of parties are present before us when these proceedings are dictated - Submitted that had affixed signatures and power of attorney holder of has signed above document in his presence - This is recorded – Held, CLB has further observed, that it was an admitted fact, that petitioner qualifies under Section 399 of Act and Court has jurisdiction to deal with petition under Section 397 or/and 398 of Act - Having chosen not to challenge aforesaid observations of CLB, in Court view, argument advanced deserves no merit and needs to be rejected - However, it should not be construed, that Court have held that proceedings under CLB were maintainable in law - Since proceedings are pending final adjudication, parties would be at liberty to raise all issues available to them including issue of jurisdiction - Present contempt petition deserves no merit and is liable to be dismissed, Court find that such an application need not be entertained. Indeed, respondents may be well-advised to take recourse to remedies available to them in law - Court do not wish to express any opinion one way or other in that regard - Though, Shri Kapil Sibal has strenuously argued, that this Court should invoke powers under Article 142 of Constitution and issue directions to contempt petitioner, Court find, that this is not a case wherein directions as sought, should be issued - Present contempt petition is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.
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 2001:-
"In Conmt. Pet. (C) Nos.265-267/1999 in Conmt. Pet. (C) No.209/1998 in Civil Appeal No.366/1998, 603/1998 & 605/1998.
After hearing Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel for the alleged contemnor, at length, we are satisfied that the contemnor has flouted the order of this Court dated 4th May, 1999 by not transferring 50% of the share (and contending that he could make out the50% share only by calculating the shares of NIHPL held by M/s. Fashion Wears Private Ltd., which have been forbidden by the order dated 22.01.1998). We call upon the contemnor to show cause regarding the punishment to be imposed on him for which he shall be present in this Court on 29th November, 2001.
LA. No.6 in C.P. (C) No.209/1998 in C.A. No.366/1998.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
List all matters on 29th November, 2001."
4. It appears, that subsequently the matter was settled between the parties and the parties had placed on record the Minutes of the Consent Order. It will be apposite to reproduce the entire order passed by this Court on 12th December 2001:-
"The following cases are pending between the parties who are parties in the present proceedings before us one way or the other. We are told that all the parties have settled their disputes in respect of all the litigations specified below.
1. O.S. No. 3535 of 1994 before the Bombay High Court.
2. O.S. No. 3578 of 1994 before the Bombay High Court.
3. O.S. No. 1105 of 1998 before the Bombay High Court.
4. O.S. No. 3469 of 1996 before the Bombay High Court.
5. O.S. No. 1792 of 1998 before the Bombay High Court.
6. O.S. No. 320 of 1991 before the Bombay High Court.
7. Company Petition No. 28 of 1992 Before the Principal Bench, Company Law Board, New Delhi.
8. Arbitration Suit No. 5110 of 1994 before the Bombay High Court.
Today they filed a document styled it as "MINUTES OF CONSENT ORDER" signed by all the parties. Learned counsel appearing on both sides submitted that all the parties have signed this document. Today except Mona Narang and Ramona Narang (two ladies), all the rest of the parties are present before us when these proceedings are dictated. As for Mona Narang and Ramona Narang learned counsel submitted that Mona Narang had affixed the signatures and the power of attorney holder of Ramona Narang has signed the above document in his presence. This is recorded.
Both sides agreed that all the suits can be disposed of in terms of the settlement evidenced by "MINUTES OF CONSENT ORDER" produced before us. For disposal of those cases and/or for passing decrees in them we have to pronounce the final formal order in terms of the settlement now produced before us. We, therefore, withdraw all the aforesaid suits to this Court under Article 139-A of the Constitution
The Court ruled that the application under the Companies Act was maintainable despite previous findings, emphasizing proper compliance with ownership criteria for governance disputes.
No appeal lies against dismissal of contempt petition under Section 19 Contempt of Courts Act read with Section 425 Companies Act; appealable only against orders imposing punishment for contempt.
The NCLT has exclusive jurisdiction over contempt arising from its orders, and the High Court cannot assume parallel contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The court ruled that civil contempt requires clear evidence of willful disobedience, which was not established due to the respondents' financial difficulties.
The court ruled that both oppression and just and equitable grounds must be established for the CLB to exercise jurisdiction under the Companies Act, emphasizing strict interpretation of Articles of ....
Legal professionals must prioritize case management and adhere to court processes amidst allegations of misconduct.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
