A court exercising contempt jurisdiction must restrict itself to determining willful disobedience of an order and cannot address the merits of a case, modify prior orders, or issue substantive directions that effectively decide pending disputes, as doing so constitutes a clear excess of jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

OM NARAYAN RAI, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails an order dated March 10, 2026 passed by the learned National Company Law Tribunal (hereafter “the NCLT”), Kolkata Bench whereby three applications for contempt being Cont. A (IBC) No. 1 (KB)/2026, Cont. A (IBC) No. 2 (KB)/2026, Cont. A (IBC) No. 4 (KB)/2026 have been dismissed by the NCLT with the observation/direction that “There should not be any impediment on the part of the Liquidator to conclude the sale process with execution of sale certificate in favour of Successful Auction Purchaser”.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. The facts which are relevant for the present purpose may be briefly recounted.

3. The petitioner has approached the NCLT by filing an application being I.A. (IBC) No. 1285/KB/2024 (hereafter “interlocutory application”) praying for certain reliefs as indicated therein while alleging inter alia that the liquidator i.e. the opposite party herein has interfered with the petitioner’s possession in respect of certain plots of land. By the said application, the petitioner has also challenged an e-auction notice dated June 04, 2024 published by the liquidator thereby putting on sale the assets and properties of the corporate debtor i.e. Amrit Hatcheries Private Limited.

4. On the said application an interim order was passed by the NCLT on July 03, 2024 thereby, permitting the auction to be held on the scheduled date but restraining the finalization of the sale till the matter would be heard out.

5. The sale that was initially scheduled to be held on July 04, 2024, as indicated in the e-auction notice which has been impugned in the said interlocutory application, fell through for wants of bids. Thereafter, a fresh e-auction notice was published on February 03, 2025 for sale of certain properties. Bids were received in respect of the properties mentioned in Lot 1 of the said notice. A subsequent sale notice was published on June 25, 2025 thereby putting the building and the structure of the corporate debtor’s factory on sale. A single bid was received in respect of the said building and the structure that had been put on auction by the said notice dated June 25, 2025.

6. On March 10, 2025, letters of intent were issued to the successful bidders in respect of the auction conducted pursuant to the e-auction notices published on February 03, 2025 and June 25, 2025.

7. On December 10, 2025 i.e. after the letters of intent had been issued, the petitioner filed an application being Cont. A (IBC) No. 4 (KB)/2026 alleging violation of the order dated July 03, 2024 passed by the NCLT in the aforesaid interlocutory application.

8. The said application has been turned down by the NCLT by the order impugned dated March 10, 2026 upon issuing certain further directions as already indicated hereinabove. Hence, the present revisional application.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

9. Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the NCLT has evidently exceeded jurisdiction in passing the order impugned inasmuch as by such order, the NCLT has effectually set aside the interim order dated July 03, 2024 that had been passed by it on the aforesaid interlocutory application. It is submitted that the NCLT had permitted