Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JAYANT NATH, J.
Peacock Tours Private Limited & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Farooq Ahmed Shala & Ors. – Respondents
CCP(CO.) 2 of 2017
Decided On : 03-04-2018
Contempt of Court - Violation of Order - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 11, 12 - Companies Act, 1956, Section 397, 398 - Protection of Women and Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, husband of petitioner No. 2, violated an order by disregarding the process of law and violating an undertaking given before the MM. The respondent also filed a company petition under the Companies Act, 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent deliberately flouted the order of the court and issued a show cause notice for contempt of court.
Issues: Violation of court order, compliance with MOU, findings of the Chartered Accountant, and contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi: The respondent's deliberate disregard of the court order and attempt to wriggle out of the obligation to comply with the order led to the court's finding of contempt.
Final Decision: Prima facie, the court held the respondent guilty of contempt of court and issued a show cause notice for the respondent to explain why he should not be held guilty for contempt of court.
JAYANT NATH, J.
1. This contempt petition is filed under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent/contemnor for committing contempt of order dated 29.04.2016 passed in Co.A(SB) 13/2016 by wilfully disobeying the same.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent is the husband of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 filed a complaint under the Protection of Women and Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the concerned M.M., Saket. During the proceedings, for putting an end to their personal differences and settling all the disputes, the parties i.e. the husband and wife had entered into an MOU dated 28.02.2015. A copy of the MOU was placed on record before the concerned MM. The parties agreed that petitioner No. 2 would give up her 15,000 shares in petitioner No. 1 Company in lieu of the absolute and clear ownership of the residential house being No.103, Pocket-2, Jasola Vihar, Delhi purchased by petitioner no. 2 and the respondent. Petitioner No. 2 was to keep the custody of the four daughters and the respondent was also to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs on the first day of each month starting from 01.03.2015 up to 01.08.2015 and a sum of Rs. 38 lakhs towards compensation to petitioner No. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents has disregarded the process of law and has violated the order of/undertaking given before the MM.
3. In the meantime, the respondents also filed a company petition being Co. Pet. No. 77/2015 under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Company Law Board. The Company Law Board passed an order dated 14.03.2016 which is the subject matter of challenge before this court in a company appeal i.e. Co.A(SB) 13/2016.
4. In Co.A(SB) 13/2016, this court on 29.04.2016 passed the following order:
“Co.App.(SB) No.13/2016 & CA Nos.1233/2016, 1235/2016
At the outset, and without prejudice to their stand on merits, counsel for the appellants has submitted that his clients are willing to abide by the terms of the MOU executed between the parties on 28.02.2015.
In response, counsel for the respondents also states that his clients are willing to abide by the terms of the said MOU provided, however, the health of the company has not been seriously impaired after 13.04.2015, when the Resolutions removing the respondent No.1 as Director and also effecting transfer of his shareholding to his estranged wife were passed.
In furtherance of the aforesaid, both sides are agreed that an independent Chartered Accountant be appointed and that the records and accounts of the company be gone into and examined by an independent Chartered Accountant on a fee to be borne equally by both parties and with a view to making an assessment of the comparative status and health of the company both before and after 13.04.2015.
Mr. Pradeep Gupta, who has also been representing the interest of a large number of small investors in the matter of DCM Financial Services, which is also posted for today, happens to be present in Court and he has been requested by this Court to suggest name of a Chartered Accountant, who may be able to do the needful. He has suggested the name of Mr. S.C. Malhotra of M/s. S.R. Kapoor & Co., Greater Kailash (Part-I), New Delhi. However, since Mr. Malhotra is out of station, his consent could not be obtained.
Mr. Pradeep Gupta to ascertain the availability of Mr. S.C. Malhotra and inform this Court on the next date of hearing.
Post this matter on 10.05.2016.
Interim orders to continue till the next date of hearing.
A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master.”
5. I may point out that the Chartered Accountant appointed pursuant to the above order dated 29.04.2016 has submitted its report dated 27.08.2016. The Chartered Accountant noted as follows:-
“(i) A perusal of the above show that except for fall in Total Revenue in Financial Year 2015-16 there is an overall improvement in fundamentals of the Company from all angles. As re
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
