An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against an order imposing punishment for contempt; an order dismissing a contempt application in limine is not appealable. Additionally, the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC does not protect the property of personal guarantors.

J U D G M E N T

This Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Cuttack Bench, Court No.1 dismissing Cont. Appl.(IB) No. 1/CB/2025 in limine. The Appellant- Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor aggrieved by the order has come up in the Appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the Appeal are:-

2.1. The Corporate Debtor- M/s. Neelkantham System Pvt. Ltd. was put to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by order dated 30.01.2025 of the Adjudicating Authority. The CIRP commenced against the Corporate Debtor on an application under Section 9 filed by Virendra Prakash Gupta proprietor of Virendra Textiles. The Corporate Debtor had obtained financial facilities from ICICI Bank for securing the facilities from ICICI Bank. Personal guarantor of the Corporate Debtor has given guarantee by mortgaging the assets. Appellant was one of the mortgagor of its immovable property to the ICICI Bank. ICICI Bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the Corporate Debtor, the borrower as well as guarantors including the Appellant. In pursuance of the notice under Section 13(2) dated 15.01.2025, possession notice under Section 13(4) dated 29.05.2025 was issued by the ICICI Bank and possession of mortgaged assets were taken. The Appellant, the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor filed Contempt Application (IB) No. 1/CB/2025 against the officials of the ICICI Bank which application came to be heard and dismissed in limine by order dated 18.08.2025. Appellant aggrieved by the said order has filed the Appeal.

3. Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that the CIRP having commenced on 30.01.2025 against the Corporate Debtor taking possession of the assets on 29.05.2025 is in violation of the Moratorium order under Section 14 and there was clear contempt committed by officials of the ICICI Bank.

4. Counsel for the Respondent refuting the submission of the Appellant submits that the present Appeal filed by the Suspended Director is not maintainable since by the impugned order Adjudicating Authority dismissed Contempt Application in limine. When Contempt Application was dismissed in limine, Appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 is not maintainable.

5. Counsel for the parties in support of their respective submissions has placed reliance on various judgments which shall be referred hereinafter.

6. The Contempt Application was filed by the Appellant- Suspended Director alleging violation of Moratorium dated 30.01.2025. From the facts on the record, it does appear that notice under Section 13(2) was issued both to borrower i.e. Corporate Debtor as well as the personal guarantor. Appellant was one of the personal guarantor and mortgagor which is reflected from the materials under Section 13(4) brought on the record. The Appellant was also referred in the notice as mortgagor. Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order held that the Moratorium under Section 14 does not protect the property of the personal guarantor, hence, the declaration of Moratorium under Section 14 does not bar initiation of proceeding under the SARFAESI Act . The above view of the Adjudicating Authority is clearly in accordance with law and fully supported by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State Bank of India vs. V. Ramakrish