ORDER

Per: Prabhat Kumar, Member (Technical)

1. This Interlocutory Application IA-2947/2021 is filed on 13.12.2021 by Mr. Lalit Palwe (Applicant) CEO of M/s. Creative Powertech Pvt. Ltd., the Corporate Debtor, in CP/IB/No.664/MB/2020 seeking initiation of proceeding under Section 425 of the Companies Act,2013 against CA. Raghunath Sarangpani (Respondent), who is said to be ‘Authorised Signatory’ of Samta Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. (the Financial Creditor), the Applicant in CP/IB/No.664/MB/2020, contending that the statement of Respondent “no subsequent reply/submissions may be filed by you in this matter” in email dated 17.01.2022 intimidates the Applicant, which tantamount to an attempt intending to interfere in the due course of justice; and for material suppression of facts in stating that the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 are inapplicable. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble NCLAT Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.336/2017, while the said decision of NCLAT was impugned by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naveen Luthra Vs. Bell Finvest (India) Limited & Anr. Civil Appeal No.654 of 2019 wherein the issue of rate of interest and application of the Usurious Loans Act was kept open to be pressed before the NCLT.

2. The Respondent has filed reply dated 19.04.2022 stating that the contentions of the Applicant are frivolous and without any merit. The Applicant has filed a written submission dated 31.05.2022 and has placed reliance on various decisions of the Courts to support his prayer for initiation of proceeding u/s. 425 of the Companies Act,2013. The Applicant has also pleaded that it tantamount to threaten the Court and has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pritam Pal vs. High Court of MP, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 529

3. It has further been submitted vide reply dated 14.03.2023 that the email dated 17.01.2022 was addressed only with a view to clarify that the written submission faithfully reproduced the oral submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners and expression of a view on behalf of one party a litigation can hardly be said to be contemptuous. Accordingly, no interference or obstruction can be said to have been caused by merely stating the stage of proceedings. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not set-aside the decision in case of Naveen Luthra Vs. Bell Finvest (India) Limited, as per my understating. As regards production of new evidences to prove the fact of dismissal no prejudices cause to the proceedings.

4. This Bench heard the Counsel and perused the material available on record as well as decisions of Courts cited by both the parties to support their contentions.

4.1. Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 reads as under:

“Power to punish for contempt. — The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of themselves as the High Court has and may exercise, for this purpose, the powers under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), which shall have the effect subject to modifications that—

(a) the reference therein to a High Court shall be construed as including a reference to the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal; and

(b) the reference to Advocate-General in section 15 of the said Act shall be construed as a reference to such Law Officers as the Central Government may, specify in this behalf”.

4.2. This Bench finds that the statement “no subsequent reply/submissions may be filed by you in this matter” in the email communication dated 17.01.2022, cannot be said to tend to intimidate the Applicant and obstruct the Justice. On comprehensive reading of said communication, it emerges that the Respondents have only clarified that no additional argument has been made in the written submissions filed by him, hence, it does not warrant any subsequent reply/submissions on that particularly in the context that the Company Petition having been reserved for orders. The said communication does not p