9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hyderabad, being subject-matter of the company petition. This Bench by an order dated July 18, 2005, while granting time for filing counter by the respondents, ordered that they shall maintain status quo in regard to the existence of the structures in the subject property. Shri R. Murari, learned counsel pointed out that the respondents in disregard of the order of this Bench continued the demolition of the structures, compelling the applicant to file yet another application (C. A. No. 87 of 2005) to punish the respondents for wilfully disobeying the order dated July 18, 2005, made in C. A. No. 84 of 2005. Furthermore, the respondents were directed by an order dated July 20, 2005, to ensure compliance with the order dated July 18, 2005, and further prohibited them from demolishing the existing structures. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Bench, after taking inspection of the disputed structures on July 24, 2005, categorically observed in his report dated July 31, 2005, that ... the demolition is in progress and one structure is completely demolished and the other is partially demolished and the debris is being removed . According to Shri R. Murari, learned counsel, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt for taking appropriate action against the respondents. 2. According to Shri K. Ramasamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, there is no provision in the Act for taking any action for contempt, in case of violation of any order of the Company Law Board. The powers enjoined upon the Company Law Board under Section 10E of the Act, do not empower it to initiate any contempt proceedings, as sought by the applicants. Regulations 44 and 47 do not empower the Company Law Board to take any action for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. These regulations, being ultra vires the provisions of the Act are beyond the scope of the Act and therefore, are illegal, null and void. No action could lie under regulations 44 and 47. The Company Law Board is not a court under the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, the Company Law Board cannot take any action under the Contempt of Courts Act for disobeying its orders. 3. The disputed structures being unauthorised and nine years old are forced to be demolished by the respondents. While, the application (C. A. No. 87 of 2005) was filed on July 20, 2005, about 90 per cent of the demolished work was over prior to July 18, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oard is empowered to take any action against the respondents for such disobedience of the orders of the Bench. 6. The issue Nos. (i) and (ii) are interrelated and therefore, they are together considered. This Bench, while the company application (C. A. No. 84 of 2005) was mentioned by the petitioner on July 18, 2005, directed that the respondents will maintain status quo in regard to the existence of the structures in question, which are according to the respondents, nine years old structures (para. 1(f) of counter statement in C. A. No. 87 of 2005). By a subsequent order made on July 20, 2005, the respondents were to ensure compliance with the order dated July 18, 2005, and accordingly, directed the respondents not to demolish the structures. While, according to the applicant, the respondents continued the demolition of the structures in gross violation of the orders of the Bench, as borne out by the photographs on record, it is vehemently contended by the respondents that 90 per cent of the structures were demolished prior to the filing of the application in C. A. No. 84 of 2005, viz., July 18, 2005, and that the remaining structures with slabs, which became weak on ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ak about the dilapidated condition of the structures as now claimed by the respondents. I do not find any reference in the report as to whether the respondents brought to the notice of the Advocate Commissioner, at the time of inspection of the structures about the dilapidated condition of the structures on account of continuous rains. It is on record that the Advocate Commissioner visited the disputed site on July 24, 2005, and took photographs of the structures in the presence of authorised representatives of both the petitioner and the respondents. The relevant portion of the Advocate Commissioner's report (page 2) assuming greater significance reads thus: (i) The site consists of two structures one is a finished structure (photograph No. 8) and another one a partially demolished structure (photographs Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). At the entrance of the site there are remains of a completely damaged structure (photographs Nos. 9, 10 and 11). The very sight of the same confirms that the demolition work is in progress. (ii) Photograph No. 1 is the distant view of the demolished structure. Photographs Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the different views of the same structure take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocally clear that they have demolished a part of the disputed structures, in spite of the restraint orders of the Bench and after the inspection undertaken by the Commissioner, on the complaints of the local residents. The respondents had adequate time at their disposal between July 18, 2005 and July 29, 2005, to seek leave of the Bench, but they failed to take any initiative in this behalf. I do not, therefore, hesitate to hold that the respondents acted in gross violation of the orders dated July 18, 2005 and July 20, 2005, of the Bench, by demolishing the entire structures in dispute. 8. Having found that the respondents are guilty of gross violation of the restraint orders of the Bench, it shall be considered whether the Bench is empowered to punish such wilful defaulters invoking regulations 44 and 47 of the Company Law Board Regulations, in the absence of any specific enabling provision in the Act. By virtue of regulation 44, every Bench of the Company Law Board has the inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the Bench. In the case before me, it is found that the respondents by demolishing the structu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the word court for the purpose of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act held thus: The authority must be enjoined to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties; The authority's source of power must emanate from the statute and must not be based merely on agreement between the parties; The authority shall have the power to ascertain the disputed question of fact and law on consideration of the legal arguments both oral and written and evidence, advanced and adduced respectively by the contesting parties; The authority shall have the power to enforce attendance of witness, production of documents etc. to decide the disputes in a judicial manner; The end result or product of the exercise of such power by the authority must result in a binding decision between the contesting parties concluding the lis between them; 10. The decision of such authority disposing the whole matter, both on the question of fact and law, must be definitive and must have finality and authoritativeness. 11. Section 10E of the Act lays down the various powers of the Company Law Board, which satisfy the essential attributes of the court, as laid down by the Gujarat High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avoiding punishment for such wilful disobedience of the orders of the Bench. Hence, the unconditional apologies made on behalf of the company following the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in Brig. E. T. Sen v. Edatata Narayanan, are not accepted by the Bench. The petitioner has not established any criminal contempt on the part of the respondents, while disobeying the orders of the Bench and, therefore, there is no scope for invoking Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act. In view of these conclusions, the petitioner is at liberty to move the High Court for invoking its jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act so as to prosecute the respondents for having wilfully disobeyed the orders dated July 18, 2005 and July 20, 2005, of the Bench. Ordered accordingly. With these directions, both the applications stand disposed of. 12. This Bench by an order dated August 16, 2004, and the subsequent orders directed the respondents to file their counter-statement to the main petition, but the respondents have not so far filed any counter-statement, which must be filed by October 21, 2005, and rejoinder to be filed by November 7, 2005. The company petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
