Compliance with court orders and directions is essential, and refusal to follow court directions can impact the outcome of a case.

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The petitioner filed a WP (C) No.6174/2011 seeking certain directions against the Registrar of Companies ("ROC?for short) for not making available copies of documents as directed by the appellate authority dated 30.09.2011 in respect of M/s.Sequin Medicinals Private Limited and M/s. Densons Poly Products Limited.

2. The writ petition was taken up on 24.10.2011 by the learned single Judge when learned counsel for the respondent appeared and informed that copies of the documents had been provided free of costs to the petitioner. However, the petitioner submitted that the documents would show that the files had not been numbered and that the documents were not certified as being true copies by the respondent.

On 28.02.2012, the order records that the respondent provided copies of complete files maintained in relation to the three companies with which the petitioner was concerned. It also records the direction of the court that the petitioner should identify the documents of which he wants certified copies and apply under the Companies Act, 1956 for obtaining the certified copies thereof. On such application being made, the certified copies were to be made available to the petitioner without any delay. The writ petition stood disposed of.

3. The petitioner filed a Contempt Case (Civil) No.439/2012 in effect seeking compliance of the order dated 24.10.2011 and 28.02.2012. The learned single Judge on 13.07.2012 recorded that it appeared from the reading of the contempt petition that the grievance of the petitioner was that there were certain documents which were missing from the file as also that certain other documents were incomplete qua which he had moved an application before the ROC on 16.05.2012 and 17.05.2012. Notice was issued to the ROC returnable on 16.08.2012. On 16.08.2012, the Assistant Registrar, ROC was present. The court recorded that it was even earlier noticed in the order dated 13.07.2012 that the petitioner had not provided the requisite information i.e. the dates on which the documents were filed for further inquiry to be conducted with regard to the documents alleged to be missing from the file of the ROC.

4. Faced with this position, the petitioner sought authenticated copies of the documents lying in the file of the ROC pertaining to Sequin Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. In order to facilitate issuance of the documents to the petitioner and to put an end to the controversy, the learned single Judge issued directions as under and disposed of the contempt petition.

“ (i) Mr.Atma Sah, Assistant Registrar will produce the file before the Standing Counsel Mr.B.V.Niren. The petitioner shall present himself in the chamber of the Standing counsel on 23.08.2012 at 4.00 p.m. in Chamber no.459, Delhi High Court.

ii) The petitioner shall be given the time to inspect the documents contained in the ROC?s file pertaining to the aforementioned company.

iii) On the petitioner identifying the documents, of which he seeks authenticated copy, the same shall be supplied to him. The photocopies of the documents shall be authenticated by Mr.Atma Sah, Assistant Registrar.

iv) In case the petitioner requires certified copies of the very same documents or other documents, he shall file the requisite application along with the necessary fee with the office of the ROC, and upon the same being done, certified copies shall be supplied to him.”

5. The petitioner filed CM No.17398/2012 in the contempt case which was listed before the learned single Judge on 03.10.2012. The learned single Judge noticed the directions issued on 16.08.2012 and the averment in the application that the petitioner visited the office of the advocate for the ROC on 28.08.2012. The learned single Judge found this strange as the date and time had been prescribed for such a visit as 23.08.2012 at 4 PM in the chamber of the counsel. The order further records that the learned single Judge once again called upon the petitioner to indicat