Legal professionals must prioritize case management and adhere to court processes amidst allegations of misconduct.

ORDER

The applicant Sayam Shares & Securities (P) Ltd. has filed this Contempt Petition by alleging for the following prayers: -

1. Initiate proceedings for civil contempt of Court, for conscious, willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 08-08-2025 passed in these proceedings.

2. Initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of court for the incidents that have transpired in court, including, but not limited to 14-10-2025 (NCLT Mumbai), 04.11.2025 (NCLT New Delhi etc.)

3. Impose heavy costs for abusive conduct as detailed herein, which has been purely designed to interfere the due course of judicial proceedings, and in the administration of justice.

2. The Respondents alleged to be in contempt on Sr. Nos.1 to 19 and Sr. No.20 states that there are other contemnors as deemed appropriate by the court. The Petitioner contempt applicant states that he is the intervenor in this Company Petition pending adjudication before NCLT New Delhi (Court -II). The applicant also declares that the subject matter of the present contempt application is within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench, New Delhi. The present applicant- Respondent No.2 in this CP has the locus standi to file the petition and that the Respondent Nos.1 to 19 are contemnors to the present proceedings. It is specifically alleged that the order dated 08.08.2025 extracted in para 7 of the application has been violated and the relevant portion highlighted by the applicant is as follows: -

“19. Having considered the above submissions, I do not find any good reason to allow the Transfer Application (IBC)/37(PB)2025, Transfer Application (IBC)/38(PB) 2025 and Transfer Application (IBC)/39(PB)2025 and post the matter before any single bench for the following reasons: -

(a) The case under Section 7 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 New Delhi is filed by the liquidator after more than four (4) years and six (6) months of the liquidation order. Thereafter, IA-2693/2025 is filed in May 2025. As to the relevance of IA- 2693/2025 by one of the alleged creditor to challenge the initiation of Section 7 application as a result of an earlier liquidation order dated 27.12.2019 passed by NCLT Mumbai is a matter which has to be considered on its own merits by the Court-II, NCLT, New Delhi, as to whether such application is maintainable or not and how the pleadings will impact the admission of the Section 7 petition. The cause for filing that application and its relevance is a matter of fact which the Court II, New Delhi concerned will have to decide on its own merits.

(b) Similarly, in the case before NCLT, Mumbai i.e. CP (IB) No. I202/MB/2017 and CP (IB) No. 1374/MB/2017, application i.e. IA No. 2393 of 2025 in CP (IB) No.1202/MUM/2017 and IA No. 2744/2025 are filed in CP (IB) No. 1202/MB/2017 to recall the order dated 27.12.2019 after nearly 5 years and in the case bearing number CP (IB) No. 1374/MUM/2017 filed by M/s. Kohinoor Cranes Services, the Operational Creditor who filed the first Section 9 petition has filed the IA-2941/2025 to recall the order dated 23.01.2020 after nearly five years.

(c) As to the merits of the claim, and admissibility of such a relief will have to be adjudged by the relevant Court on its own merit. Each court will have to deal with this issue on its own merits and more so because it arose based on a different causes of action.

(d) In any event, the proceeding initiated under Section 10 is still pending before Court-II, NCLT Mumbai the proceeding initiated under Section 9 is also pending before Court-II, NCLT, Mumbai. That court will have the domain knowledge of the entire case and it will be that Court which will be mo