9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, Ashish Kumar Dhandanya Director Trinity Alternative Investment Managers Limited, Srivishnu Raju Nandyala Director appointed by Srei Multiple Asset Investment Trust- Vision India Fund to the Corporate Debtor , Upewndra Rao Kancharana Director appointed by Srei Multiple Asset Investment Trust- Vision India Fund to the Corporate Debtor [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson , [ Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy ] Member ( Judicial ) And [ Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Mr. Arjun Asthana, Mr. Saikat Sarkar, Ms. Anushka Sarkar, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Rishav Banerjee and Mr. Saptarshi Mandal, Advocates for R-1 & 2 Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sidhartha Barua, Ms. Priya Singh, Mr. Praful Jindal, Advocates for Respondent No. 4 JUDGMENT ( Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy ) A Financial Creditor i.e., IDBI Bank filed the present contempt case under Section 425 of Companies Act, 2013 r/w Article 215 of Constitution of India and Section 15 of Contempt of Court Act 1971 against the Supervisory Committee of Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited (hereinafter referred to 'DCHL') represe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In view of the above submissions and documents as produced during the virtual hearing through sharing on the screen, we are of the firm view that four years have lapsed and implementation of Resolution Plan has still not happened. Even after approval of Resolution Plan, two years have lapsed and still the Resolution Applicant has not injected any fund in the corporate debtor. We also confirm that this Tribunal order dated 22.05.2019 as stated above is not a stay order for implementation of Resolution Plan. The Resolution Applicant is hereby directed to go ahead and implement the plan and make payments and take other actions as finally approved by the Adjudicating Authority." 2. In pursuance of direction, Contemnor No. 1 only infused a sum of Rs. 60 Crores on 15.06.2021, filed Interlocutory Application on behalf of Contemnor before Adjudicating Authority, seeking indirect stay of operation of order of this Tribunal dated 01.06.2021. 3. Despite several directions of this Tribunal at various stages, though two years period has been elapsed, the Plan was not implemented but the Contemnors infused Rs. 60 Crores as a lip service on 15th June, 2021, thus the Contemnors have failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decide the criminal contempt allegedly committed by Contemnor Nos. 1 and 4, it is appropriate to advert to relevant provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 dealing with limitation to take cognizance and mode of taking cognizance of criminal contempt. 11. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act deals with limitation for action of contempt which is extracted hereunder for better appreciation: "20. Limitation for actions for contempt.- No Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed." 12. A bare look at Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, limitation to take cognizance is one year from the date of commission of alleged contempt. Section 20 prescribes only a condition precedent to exercise power of Court under Contempt Jurisdiction. Whether or not Section 3 of the Limitation Act is attracted, it is the Court's duty to see that this condition precedent to exercise of Contempt Jurisdiction is satisfied. The Court cannot overlook it, nor can it defeat the statute, vide "Dineshbai Vs. Kripalu Co-operative Housing" AIR 1980 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. Thus, the SRA started implementation of approved Resolution Plan but not in total. Without waiting for total implementation, the Applicant filed the contempt case on 14th September, 2021 i.e., within four months. 16. The Contemnors nos. 1 & 4 being erstwhile Resolution Professionals and Members of Supervising Committee did not take steps to implement the Resolution Plan. The Contemnors are only Supervising Committee Members, not the SRA who is under obligation to implement the Resolution Plan infusing funds, when the Contempt Case against SRA is not prosecuted, the Contemnor Nos. 1 and 4, who are Members of Supervising Committee, cannot be found guilty for criminal contempt for the reason that the SRA has to infuse funds to implement Resolution Plan and unless the SRA infused funds, the Committee can do nothing to implement the Resolution Plan. Therefore, the alleged acts of Contemnors 1 and 4 cannot be said to be willful or intentional, to saddle with any liability for criminal contempt. Criminal Contempt is defined under Section 2(C) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1917 is as follows: "2. ... (C) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r High Court. In case of criminal contempt, other than contempt referred under Section 14 of the Act, Supreme Court or High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by Advocate General or any other person, with the consent in writing of Advocate General. In relation to Union Territory of Delhi, such Law Officer, as the Central Govt. may by notification in the Official Gazette, specifying in this behalf or any other person with the consent of such Law Officer in writing.
20. In the present contempt case, the procedure contemplated under Section 15 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has not been complied, consequently, the Contempt Case is liable to be closed as cognizance was taken in violation of mandatary procedure prescribed in Section 15 and major part of alleged acts of contempt are barred by Limitation prescribed by Section 20 of the Act.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no ground to punish the Contemnor Nos 1 and 4. However, it is open to the Creditors to take action, if any, in accordance with provisions of IBC and regulations thereunder, subject to permissibility.
In the result, Contempt Case is closed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
