Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV
S.G. Mittal Enterprises Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. breach of consent terms leads to contempt petition. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. contempt jurisdiction under nclt debated. (Para 10) |
| 3. nclt's jurisdiction and powers in contempt cases reviewed. (Para 11 , 12 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 25) |
| 4. nature of contempt jurisdiction characterized. (Para 14 , 15 , 30 , 32) |
| 5. petition is dismissed; freedom to pursue alternative legal processes. (Para 36 , 37) |
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
1. Heard Mr. Singh learned Advocate for Petitioner. None appears for Respondents.
2. The present Contempt Petition is filed by Petitioner against Respondents for breach of Consent Terms filed before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (for short “NCLT”) in an Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short “IBC”) initiated by Respondent No.1 - Bank i.e. Corporate Debtor against Petitioner.
3. On 11.07.2025, Respondent No.1 – Bank provided a Cash Credit Facility to Petitioner. On 09.08.2023, Respondent No.1 – Bank filed Company Petition (IB) No.1073 (MB) 2023 against Petitioner due to an alleged default.
4. Around 09.08.2023 to 13.11.2023, Petitioner and Respondent No.1 – Bank engaged in settlement ta
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.
Contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked for mere non-payment; it requires clear evidence of wilful disobedience.
Contempt proceedings require proof of wilful disobedience; mere failure to comply does not constitute contempt.
Mere non-compliance without evidence of wilful disobedience does not constitute civil contempt; execution of orders provides the appropriate recourse for enforcement.
Legal professionals must prioritize case management and adhere to court processes amidst allegations of misconduct.
The NCLT/NCLAT qualifies as a 'Court' under Section 195 Cr.P.C., allowing them to exercise jurisdiction regarding contempt applications under Section 340.
The Tribunal ruled that contempt proceedings must be based on enforceable orders, noting that previously cancelled shares cannot be reinstated, while recognizing the significance of corporate governa....
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
