2011 (6) TMI 990 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged contempt of court order dated 18.08.2010.
2. Compliance with the principles of natural justice.
3. Adequacy of opportunity provided to the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice.
4. Validity of the cancellation of the petitioner's license.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged contempt of court order dated 18.08.2010:
The petitioner alleged that the respondents did not comply with the court's order dated 18.08.2010, which directed the removal of the seal from the petitioner's premises and the provision of documents to enable the petitioner to respond to a show cause notice. The court noted that the respondents claimed to have complied with the order by removing the seal and providing the documents. However, the petitioner contended that the access provided was insufficient, particularly to the computer system necessary for preparing a detailed explanation.

2. Compliance with the principles of natural justice:
The petitioner argued that the lack of access to the computer system and records hindered their ability to respond adequately to the show cause notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The court acknowledged the importance of natural justice but emphasized that the contempt proceedings were not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the adequacy of compliance with these principles.

3. Adequacy of opportunity provided to the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice:
The court examined whether the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to respond to the show cause notice. It was noted that the premises were opened on 18.09.2010 and 20.09.2010, but the petitioner claimed this was insufficient time to access necessary records. The court highlighted the difference in views between the petitioner and the licensing authority regarding the sufficiency of the opportunity provided, which could not be resolved in contempt proceedings.

4. Validity of the cancellation of the petitioner's license:
The court observed that the cancellation of the petitioner's license was a separate matter that should be challenged through appropriate legal channels rather than in contempt proceedings. The court emphasized that the contempt jurisdiction is limited to determining whether there was a deliberate disobedience of the court's order.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that while there might have been grounds to argue that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to respond to the show cause notice, this did not amount to contempt. The court found no evidence of deliberate disobedience by the respondents. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to seek remedy against the cancellation of the license through appropriate legal avenues.