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.

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 talks and reached an understanding regarding the repayment of the financial debt.

5. On 04.10.2024, Petitioner and Respondent No.1 – Bank agreed to amicably settle the dispute and thereafter settled it by agreeing to payment of Rs.5,71,07,504/- and in that regard executed and signed the Consent Terms.

6. On 18.04.2024, NCLT took Consent Terms on record and disposed the proceedings filed by Respondent No.1 – Bank against Petitioner vide order dated 18.04.2024 in terms of the Agreement.

7. It is Petitioner’s case that it made payment of entire consideration in accordance with the schedule set out in the Consent Terms. On 30.12.2024, Petitioner requested Respondent No.1 – Bank to issue a “No Dues Certificate”. However, on 04.01.2025, despite receiving the full agreed-upon settlement amount, Respondent No.1 - Bank with its letter demanded payment of alleged balance amount of Rs. 18,57,061.47/- thereby disregarding the Consent Term and the NCLT’s order.

8. It is Petitioner’s case that it responded to Respondent No.1 – Bank’s letter and further issued two letters dated 15.01.2025 and 07.02.2025 to Respondent No.1 – Bank as a final reminder. It is Petitioner’s case that Respondent No.1 –Bank incorrectly reported the credit information of Petitioner to Respondent No.4 – TransUnion CIBIL Limited and indicated an outstanding amount of Rs.1,78,62,587/- towards Cash Credit Account and hence the said erroneous reporting led to holding up Petitioner’s loan Application processed by Bank of Baroda.

9. Being aggrieved, Petitioner filed the present Contempt Petition.

10. Mr. Singh, learned Advocate for Petitioner would submit that despite complete compliance by Petitioner, Respondent No.1 - Bank failed and neglected to issue a “No Dues Certificate” in breach of the Consent Terms and the order passed by the NCLT. He would submit that Respondent No.1 - Bank sought to justify its non-compliance by contending that an amount of Rs.18,57,061/- allegedly remained outstanding and asserted that no waiver of principal amount could be granted. He would submit that such a contention is wholly impermissible in law as Respondent No.1 - Bank is bound by the Consent Terms which stood accepted by a judicial order and has attained finality. Hence in the aforesaid circumstances, he would submit that Petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

10.1. In this regard issue which arises for consideration is whether the High Court has parallel jurisdiction to entertain a Contempt Petition for non-compliance of orders passed by the NCLT under the provisions of the IBC. Mr. Singh would submit that the IBC does not confer any independent powers upon the NCLT and there