National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Contempt Petition for Non-Compliance. The Tribunal found that the Respondent's actions constituted compliance with its earlier order, and the Appellant should pursue appeal remedies instead of contempt.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: CHENNAI
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a contempt petition filed by M/s. Sur-Vir Finance Ltd. against the Resolution Professional of Arisu Retail Pvt. Ltd. for alleged non-compliance with a judgment rendered by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on 20.04.2026. The Appellant contended that the Respondent's order dated 12.05.2026 did not fully comply with the Tribunal's earlier directions. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had previously approached the Tribunal regarding a claim rejection and had filed a Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.230/2026, which was decided on 20.04.2026. Following this, the Appellant escalated the matter to the Hon'ble Apex Court, which dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 7956 of 2026 on 27.05.2026. The Tribunal analyzed whether the Respondent's actions constituted contempt, concluding that the order passed on 12.05.2026 indicated compliance with the earlier judgment. The Tribunal emphasized that any perceived shortcomings in the compliance could not be addressed through contempt proceedings and that the Appellant should seek remedies through an appeal. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the contempt petition, finding no merit in the allegations of deliberate contempt.

Headnote

A) Contempt of Court - Non-Compliance with Tribunal Order - Allegation of Contempt - Companies Act, 2013, Section 425 - The Appellant alleged that the Respondent failed to comply with the Tribunal's order dated 20.04.2026 by issuing a subsequent order on 12.05.2026. The Tribunal held that the Respondent's actions did not constitute contempt as there was compliance with the order, and the Appellant should pursue remedies through an appeal rather than contempt proceedings. Held that the contempt petition lacked merit and was dismissed (Paras 6-9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Respondent committed contempt by not fully complying with the Appellate Tribunal's order dated 20.04.2026.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal dismissed the contempt petition, finding no merit in the allegations of non-compliance with the order dated 20.04.2026, as the subsequent order indicated compliance.

Law Points

  • Contempt of court
  • compliance with orders
  • judicial discretion
  • appeal remedies
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (06) 15

Cont App No. 02/2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.230/2026

2026-06-19

Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Jatindranath Swain

Mr. Bharadwaj ar amasubramaniam R, Ms. Zeba Khan

M/s. Sur-Vir Finance Ltd.

Mr. Yogesh Gupta, Resolution Professional of M/s. Arisu Retail Pvt. Ltd.

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

Nature of Litigation

Contempt proceedings for alleged non-compliance with a Tribunal order.

Remedy Sought

The Appellant sought to hold the Respondent in contempt for not complying with the Tribunal's order.

Filing Reason

The Appellant alleged that the Respondent's subsequent order did not comply with the earlier judgment.

Previous Decisions

The Tribunal had previously rendered a judgment on 20.04.2026, which was later upheld by the Apex Court.

Issues

Whether the Respondent committed contempt by not fully complying with the Tribunal's order dated 20.04.2026.

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that the order of 12.05.2026 was not a complete compliance with the Tribunal's earlier order. The Respondent contended that the order constituted compliance and that the Appellant should seek remedies through an appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that mere dissatisfaction with compliance does not amount to contempt, and the appropriate remedy for the Appellant was to file an appeal rather than pursue contempt proceedings.

Judgment Excerpts

The Appellant alleging the order not to be a complete compliance of the judgment of 20.04.2026 contends that the Respondent has committed a contempt of not complying the order. The entire prerogative of looking into an aspect of commission of deliberate contempt falls within the domain and prerogative of the Tribunal itself.

Procedural History

The Appellant filed a contempt petition after the Tribunal's judgment on 20.04.2026, which was followed by an appeal to the Apex Court that was dismissed on 27.05.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Companies Act, 2013: Section 425
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in SC/ST Act Case Due to Withdrawal of Supplementary Statement by Complainant. Original Complaint Lacked Caste Reference; Word Used Was 'Bhamtya' (Deceiver), Not a Caste Slur.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Contempt Notices Against Defendant in Patent Infringement Suit — No Willful Disobedience Found. Court holds that breach of an order must be willful and deliberate to constitute contempt under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, and me...