9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the company, Appellants, Respondent, Sumit Gupta and one Shilpa Gupta. The MoU was entered into for transfer of shareholding in the company and to re-organize the company's management. In-effect, the Respondent was to purchase the entire shareholding of the Appellants and thereafter, the Respondent was responsible to run the affairs of the company. The MoU also provides that in case of any claim, dispute or difference, the parties shall seek to resolve the same by mutual consultation and negotiation. In the event, the parties are unable to reach a resolution, the dispute is to be settled by arbitration. 3.3 Alleging that the Respondent has failed to discharge his obligation under the MoU inasmuch as the Respondent has started operating another entity from the premises of the company, is siphoning off plant and machinery which was owned by the company and is defaulting in paying instalments of the term loan - the Appellants issued a legal notice to resolve the issues. 3.4 On receiving no reply from Respondent, the Appellants issued a notice in terms of Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter, "Arbitration Act"), on 17th March 2020. Pursuant thereto, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the arbitrator under Section 26 of the Arbitration Act inter-alia for a Local Commissioner to be appointed and to prepare an inventory of assets lying at the factory premises of the company. The same was allowed by the arbitrator on 16th December 2020. 3.10 On 22nd December 2020, the report of the Local Commissioner was received. As per the said report, all the machines were present and operational at the premises of the company except one - a Flat Bed Printing Machine. 3.11 Aggrieved by the findings of the Local Commissioner so also by the fact that the Respondent till that point of time had not deposited any amount of EMIs in the loan account, the Appellants filed a Contempt Petition bearing CONT. CAS(C) No. 75/2021 before the High Court on 13th January 2021. The Appellants inter-alia prayed that the Respondent be prosecuted and punished; and to ensure the immediate compliance of the order dated 11th June 2020 passed by the High Court and orders dated 17th June 2020 and 1st July 2020 passed by the arbitrator. 3.12 During the pendency of the Contempt Petition, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Chandigarh admitted a petition against the company under Section 9 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Single Judge of the High Court in passing the impugned judgment and order is totally in breach of the settled legal position. It is submitted that once the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 5th December 2023, on merits, held that the Respondent was guilty of intentionally and malafidely violating the orders dated 11th June 2020 and 1st July 2020 and, as such, had committed the contempt of the orders of the Court, another learned Single Judge of the High Court before whom the matter was subsequently listed could not have reviewed the matter and held the Respondent not to be guilty of contempt. 6. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija submits that the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide the impugned judgment and final order dated 3rd July 2024 has virtually sat in an appeal over the order passed by another Single Judge of the High Court dated 5th December 2023. 7. It is, therefore, submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 3rd July 2024 be quashed and set aside. 8. Mr. Shikhil Suri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on the contrary, submits th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contempt, to file an affidavit showing cause as to why he should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. 15. When the matter was listed before the another learned Single Judge of the High Court after the change of roster, again after considering the rival submissions, the learned Single Judge of the same Court vide impugned judgment and final order observed thus: "38. Having given thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and considering the material on record, it cannot be said that there is any wilful and deliberate disobedience by the respondents of the order passed by this Court and the learned Arbitrator. No merit is found in the present petition. Accordingly, notice to show cause as to why the respondent No.1 should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, is hereby discharged. 39. The present petition is dismissed, in the aforesaid terms." 16. It is thus clear that the learned Single Judge of the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and final order dated 3rd July 2024 has reviewed the entire order of the learned Single Judge dated 5th December 2023. After the order was passed on 5th December 2023, anothe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
