D.S.R. VARMA, J :-Heard Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri S. Ravi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2007; Sri Tushar Desai, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri C. V. Narasimham, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in Contempt Appeal Nos. 4, 5 and 7 of 2007; Sri L. Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in Contempt Appeal Nos.6 and 8 to 11 of 2007, as well as Sri B. Kantha Rao, learned Counsel, representing Sri A. V. Sivaiah, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, in all the Contempt Appeals.

2. Since all these contempt appeals do arise out of the same cause of action and the subject-matter is the same and also the facts and law are almost similar, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. These contempt appeals are directed against the judgment, dated 3.8.2007, in Contempt Case No.915 of 2002, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in convicting respondent No.1 therein, who is the Promoter Director, as well as the other Directors of respondent No.3-Mis. Nagarjuna Finance Limited and sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 1 six months, and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the notices under Form I of the Contempt of Court Rules, 1980 (for brevity, 'the Rules') issued to them subsequent thereto.

4. Originally, the contempt case was filed against respondents 1 to 3 therein, for committal of civil and criminal contempt by interfering in the course of administration of justice, by violating and disobeying-

(a) the orders of the Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench, at Chennai (for brevity, 'the Board'), in Company Petition No.35 of 2000, dated 29.2.2000;

(b) order in CA No.344/634-AlSRB/2001, dated 21.8.2001; and

(c) for breach of affidavits filed before the Board and a learned Single Judge of this Court in Company Appeal No.7 of 2001.

5. The appellant in Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2007 is the erstwhile Promoter Director of M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Limited, Hyderabad; respondent No.3 herein is the Nagarjuna Finance Limited, the former Directors of the Company are the appellants in Contempt Appeal Nos. 4 to 11 of 2007 and respondent No.1 in all the contempt appeals is the Depositor in the Nagarjuna Finance Limited, who initiated the contempt proceedings against the Promoter Director and other Directors of the Nagarjuna Finance Limited. Respondents 2 and 3 in Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2007 and respondents 2, 3 and 4 in Contempt Appeal Nos. 4 to 11 of 2007 are added as formal parties.

6. For the sake of convenience, III this common judgment, the appellant in Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2007, the appellants in Contempt Appeal Nos. 4 to 11 of 2007 and respondent No.1 in all the contempt appeals hereafter are referred to as 'the Promoter Director', 'the other Directors' and 'the Depositor', respectively, and M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Limited, Hyderabad, is referred to as 'the Company'.

7. The brief facts that led to filing of the contempt case are as under :

Respondent No.3 in Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2007, who is figured as respondent No. 4 in Contempt Appeal Nos.4 to 11 of 2007, is a Limited Company. Respondent No.1 in all the contempt appeals is a depositor in the Company. The amounts deposited by him were not allegedly repaid in time after the due date. The Company filed Company Petition No.35 of 2000 before the Board to invoke its jurisdiction under sub-section (9) of Section 58-A of the Companies Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'the Act'). Since the Company is not legally entitled to file a petition under sub-section (9) of Section 58-A of the Act, however, the Board took up the issue suo motu and formulated a scheme under sub-section (9) of Section 58-A of the Act, by order, dated 29.2.2000 (hereinafter referred to 'the Scheme Order'). Clause 13 of the Scheme Order ordains the Managing Director of the company to file an affidavit to comply w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document