NCLAT Dismisses Appeal in Contempt Proceedings Due to Lack of Merit. The dismissal was based on the limitation period under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which barred the contempt petition.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a company appeal concerning a contempt petition related to an order issued by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench. The appellant, Hemendra Aran, was directed to deposit a substantial amount as per the order dated 30.09.2022, which he failed to comply with, leading to contempt proceedings. The contempt petition was initially dismissed on 01.12.2025 due to the limitation period as prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The appellant sought to recall this order, arguing that his material arguments were not considered and that he was not heard. However, the NCLAT refrained from delving into the merits of the case, focusing instead on the procedural aspect of limitation. The court noted that the restoration application filed under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 was not a valid recourse for reopening the contempt proceedings, which had already been adjudicated on merits. The NCLAT ultimately dismissed the appeal, concluding that there was no legal error in the lower tribunal's decision and that all pending applications were closed.

Headnote

A) Contempt of Court - Recall of Order - Limitation - Contempt proceedings barred by limitation under Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The court held that the dismissal of the contempt petition due to limitation was not open for reconsideration on merits, and the restoration application was not maintainable under law. Held that the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed (Paras 2-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the order dated 01.12.2025 could have been recalled due to limitation under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the order dated 01.12.2025 was not open for reconsideration on merits due to limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The restoration application was deemed not maintainable, and all pending applications were closed.

Law Points

  • Contempt of Court
  • Limitation
  • Restoration Application
  • Natural Justice
  • NCLT Rules
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (08) 84

Company Appeal (AT) No. 208 of 2026

2026-08-03

Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Arun Baroka, Indevar Pandey

Mr. Anshuman Singh, Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Dhiraj Mhetre, Ms. Shivani Sharma, Mr. Shreyas Lele, Mr. Suraj Dhavan, Mr. Sanampreet Singh

Hemendra Aran

Aranca (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Company appeal concerning contempt proceedings.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to recall the order dismissing the contempt petition.

Filing Reason

Contempt petition dismissed due to limitation.

Previous Decisions

Contempt petition was dismissed on 01.12.2025; appeal against this dismissal was filed.

Issues

Whether the order dated 01.12.2025 could be recalled due to limitation. Whether the restoration application was maintainable under law.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that he was not heard and material arguments were not considered. Respondents contended that the contempt petition was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi

The dismissal of the contempt petition due to limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was upheld, and the restoration application was not a valid means to reopen the matter.

Judgment Excerpts

The proceedings being barred by limitation, having been preferred after lapse of one year of the order of which contempt was alleged. The Restoration Application...doesn’t deserves consideration.

Procedural History

The case began with a company petition leading to a contempt petition, which was dismissed due to limitation. The appellant filed a restoration application, which was also dismissed, leading to the current appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Section 20
  • Companies Act, 2013: Section 425
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Landlord's Contempt Petition Against Tenant for Breach of Undertaking. Respondents found guilty of contempt for misleading the court regarding possession of the suit premises.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Food Corporation of India Against Arbitration Award. The Court upheld the arbitrator's speaking award, finding no grounds for interference.