IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CACP No. 7 of 2018 (O&M)

Reserved on: 8.1.2025 Pronounced on: 28.1.2025 Pritpal Singh Grewal .....Appellant Versus Gurlal Singh Grewal ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Argued by: Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Advocate and for the appellant.

Mr. A.S.Narang, Advocate Ms. Ishita Kaur, Advocate, Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Satbir Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

****

SURESHWAR THAKUR , J.

1. The instant appeal has been directed against the order dated 30.10.2018, as passed by the learned Contempt Bench of this Court in COCP No. 729 of 2014. Brief facts of the case.

2. The respondent herein filed C.P. No. 49 of 2007 under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act before the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short ‘the CLB’), alleging thereins opression and mismanagement in the affairs of Upper India Steel Manufacturing and Engineering Company. On 8.5.2007, the CLB passed an interim order on the petition (supra). The relevant portion of the order (supra) becomes extracted hereinafter.

“(1) The company/respondent shall maintain status quo as of date of the fixed assets, the composition of the board and any holding in the company.

(2) In case of sale of any asset, the same should not be done without being in the agenda and approved by the board.

(3) A fortnightly statement of receipts and payments is to be furnished to the petitioners effective from Ist May, 2007.

(4) For all board meetings, 15 days notice should be given to the petitioners.”

3. Since the order (supra) remained purportedly uncomplied, thereby the respondent herein preferred COCP No. 729 of 2014, before this Court, with a prayer therein to intiate contempt proceedings against the contemnor concerned, thus on account of the appellant herein purportedly wilfully disobeying the order (supra) passed by this Court. It has been further alleged therein, that even after the passing of the order (supra), the respondents concerned have not complied with the directions of the CLB, which amounts to wilful disobedience on their part.

4. The learned Contempt Court concerned, vide order dated

30.10.2018, passed the hereinafter order upon the COCP (supra).

“x x x x

9. After having scrutinized the record and hearing arguments of both the counsels, this Court finds that undisputed fact emerging from record are that respondents sought permission of Board of Directors before selling a number of machines whereas no permission was sought to dismantle afore-stated rolling mills. The respondents are not disputing the fact of dismantling the machines which were undisputedly assets of the company and were subject to interim order passed by CLB. The Court finds that respondents have violated interim

2025.01.28 16:49 order of CLB which amounts to contempt of Court. The respondents deserves to be punished for their wilful disobedience of order of CLB.

10. The contention of Ld. Senior Counsel that interim order of CLB merged into final order and petition of petitioner was not allowed so there was no contempt is misconceived and bereft of merits. If contention of Ld. Counsel is accepted, there would be no need to comply with interim orders which would result into travesty of justice as well as erode the majesty and dignity of judicial forums. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla Versus Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. 1997(3) SCC 443 has clearly held that non compliance of interim order would entail contempt of Court and contemnor cannot take plea of passing of final order. Similar view has been expressed by Allahabad High Court in the case of Naresh Chandra Kapoor Versus O.P.S. Malik 2004 CriLJ 2392. Therefore, plea of Ld. Senior Counsel is rejected and the respondents are held guilty of disobedience of orders of CLB.

The respondents are hereby called upon to appear before this Court in pe