Contempt proceedings are not maintainable against a juristic person when the core obligation is not met due to changed circumstances.

SL. No.2

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

COURT HALL NO: II

Hearing Through: VC and Physical (Hybrid) Mode

CORAM: SHRI. RAJEEV BHARDWAJ – HON’BLE MEMBER (J)

CORAM: SHRI. SANJAY PURI - HON’BLE MEMBER (T)

ATTENDANCE-CUM-ORDER SHEET OF THE HEA8ING OF NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL,

HYDERABAD BENCH, HELD ON 21.01.2025 at 10:30 AM

TRANSFER PETITION NO.

COMPANY PETITION/APPLICATION NO. Contempt Application (IBC)/7/2024

Company Petition (IB) No.230/9/HDB/2022

NAME OF THE COMPANY Mahimegha Agritech Pvt Ltd

NAME OF THE PETITIONER(S) Novel Tech Feeds Pvt Ltd

NAME OF THE RESPONDENT(S) Mahimegha Agritech Pvt Ltd

9 OF IBC

UNDER SECTION

ORDER

Contempt Application (IBC)/7/2024

Orders pronounced, recorded vide separate sheets. In the result, the application is

dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/-

MEMBER (T) MEMBER (J)

Vamsi

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL In the matter of M/s Mahimegha Agritech Private Limited Between:

M/s. Noveltech Feeds Private Limited, Trendz Hub, 1-89/A/8, Plot No. 8, 4th Floor, Gafoor Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad- 500081.

Rep By Assistant General Manager (Legal)

Mrs. Amtul Baseer Quadri, W/o Dr. Mir Zahoor Gul, ….Applicant/Operational Creditor AND M/s. Mahimegha Agritech Pvt. Ltd.

Represented by its Promoter, Director, & Shareholder Mr. Venkata Reddy Atla, Flat No. 204, Plot No. 49 and 50, Syamala Pride Apartment, Silpa Layout, Opp: JNTU, Near INCOIS, Pragati Nagra Village, Bachupally Mandal, Rangareddy, Telangana-500090.

…Respondent/Contemnor Date of order : 21.01.2025 CORAM Sri Rajeev Bhardwaj, Hon’ble Member (Judicial)

Sri Sanjay Puri, Hon’ble Member (Technical)

Counsels present For the Applicant : Mr. N.B. Sudarshan For Respondent : Mr. M.M. Viswaraj Per: Sanjay Puri

O R D E R

1. The present application is filed by M/s. Noveltech Feeds Private Limited, the Operational Creditor (OC) of M/s. Mahimegha Agritech Private Limited (CD), under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Section 425 of the Companies Act and Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. The application seeks to initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondent CD for its willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 01.09.2023 passed in IA 317 of 2023 by this Adjudicating Authority. Additionally, it requests that the Respondents be directed to comply with the directions given in the order dated 01.12.2022 in IA 1291 of 2022.

2. The Respondent CD was admitted into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) through an ex-parte order dated

19.10.2022, following an application filed by the Applicant OC.

3. Aggrieved by this order, the Respondent CD filed IA No. 1291 of

2022 seeking to set it aside. This Authority, by order dated 01.12.2022, allowed IA No. 1291 of 2022, thereby setting aside the CIRP initiation order, and reopening the original CP seeking initiation of CIRP against the Respondent CD for further adjudication.

4. While passing the set-aside order of 01.12.2022,this Authority had also directed the Respondent CD is pay the CIRP Cost, if any. This was pressed by the Applicant OC in IA No. 317 of 2023. On 01.09.2023, this Authority reiterated its order dated 01.12.2022 and directed the Respondent CD to pay the CIRP cost. As the Respondent CD has failed to comply with the orders dated 01.12.2022 and 01.09.2023, the present contempt petition has been filed.

5. However, in the due course, the original CP (IB) No. 230 of 2022, was taken up, and after hearing both sides, this Authority, finding no merits in the case, dismissed the Petition seeking the initiation of CIRP against the CD, by order dated 31.10.2023.

6. In counter reply, the Respondent CD has argued that since the main CP has been dismissed, any interim application ceases to have effect, and this Authority no longer has jurisdiction to entertain the present Contempt Petition. The Respondent CD further asserts that the Contempt Petition is non-maintainable, as contempt cannot be levied against a juristic person. Additionally, the Respondent CD claims that following the dismissal of the CP, the CIRP ex