Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 543
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) , Hon'ble Mr. Arun Baroka (Member (Technical)) ,
COL A KHANNA SM Retd – Appellant
Versus
Directors appointed by DGCOA Delhi gymkhanna club ltd – Respondent
2474/ND/2024 IA
The court found no grounds for contempt as the reports were filed as directed, and the application for recall was effectively a review, which is not permissible.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Noncompliance with court orders - The applicant sought to recall an order dismissing a contempt application for alleged noncompliance with a prior order dated 02.06.2022, asserting that the word 'may' should be interpreted as 'shall' - The court found no grounds for contempt as the reports were filed before the NCLT. (Paras 2, 5, 6)
(B) Review of Judgment - The application disguised as a recall was effectively a review of the previous judgment, which the court determined was not warranted. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The applicant filed a contempt application alleging noncompliance with an order directing the filing of reports before the NCLT, claiming that the respondent's counsel made a false statement regarding the submission of these reports.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that no contempt had occurred as the reports were indeed filed, and thus dismissed the application to recall the order.
Issues: The main issues included whether the word 'may' in the order should be interpreted as 'shall' and whether grounds for contempt existed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant failed to demonstrate a violation of the order, and the application for recall was effectively a review, which was not permissible.
Result: Application dismissed.
(Hybrid Mode) 12.04.2024:
- Heard Shri Deepak Khosla, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant. This Application has been filed praying for recall of order dated 10.08.2023 in Contempt Case (AT) No. 17 of 2023. On 10.08.2023 in the Contempt Application filed by the Applicant following order was passed:
- “ORDER 10.08.2023: Heard Mr. Deepak Khosla, Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant.
2. This contempt application has been filed for initiating contempt for alleging noncompliance of the order dated 02.06.2022. This Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) No. 93 of 2022 passed an order on
02.06.2022. Paragraph 5 of the order is as follows: "5. List this Appeal 'For Admission (After Notice)' on 01st August, 2022. Learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India may also place the Reports, if any, in this Appeal which has been directed to be placed before the NCLT as per the directions in the Impugned Order."
3. The counsel for the applicant submits that the Reports which were directed by this Tribunal has not been filed and the word 'may' in paragraph 5 should be read as 'shall'.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 submits that the reports have been filed before the NCLT and an application has also been filed in the appeal. Respondent No.1 prays for accepting the reports in a sealed cover. It is submitted that the application as to whether the report can be filed in the sealed cover or not, engaging attention in the Company Appeal (AT) No. 93 of 2022.
5. We are of the view that no case has been made out to initiate any contempt proceedings on the ground that order dated 02.06.2022 has been violated by the Respondent.
6. We close the contempt application with these observations.”
2. Shri Khosla, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that false statement was made by learned counsel for Respondent No.1 which is recorded in Para 4, hence, present is a case for recall of the order.
3. The statement which was noticed in Para 4 was of the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 that the reports have been filed before the NCLT and an application has also been filed in the appeal. The Court noticing the statement in Para 4, took view that no case has been made out to initiate any contempt proceeding on the ground that order dated 02.06.2022 has been violated.
4. The grounds for recall of an order are well settled. The Applicant in his application has referred to five member bench judgment of this Tribunal in “ Union Bank of India vs. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian , 2023 SCC Online NCLAT 283 ”. The Application filed by the Appellant which is disguised as a recall of the judgment is in fact review of the judgment dated 10.08.2023. The order which was passed in Para 5 on 10.08.2023 is as follows:
- “5. We are of the view that no case has been made out to initiate any contempt proceedings on the ground that order dated 02.06.2022 has been violated by the Respondent.”
5. The application for initiating contempt case was decided by the Court and the Court decided not to initiate the contempt proceedings in the facts indicated. The order dated 02.06.2022 was passed in Company Appeal (AT) No. 93 of 2022 which Appeal being pending, the Court decided not to initiate the contempt proceeding looking to the nature of the order. Hence, we do not find any ground to recall judgment dated 10.08.2023. Application is dismissed.
