National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
R. Prasanth vs M/S.Ubc Engineers Pvt. Ltd on 16 March, 2023
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Contempt Case (AT) No. 20 of 2022
In
Company Appeal (AT) No. 256 of 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
UBC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Applicant
Versus
R Prasanth ...Respondent/Contemnor
Present:
For Appellant : Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Mr. Arun Pal, Mr. Saurabh K. Mishra,
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Ms. Tuhina Misra, Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. Rahul, Proxy Counsel
ORDER
16.03.2023: Heard Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant. The present application has been filed under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 mainly on allegation of disobedience to the Judgment passed by this tribunal in CA (AT) No. 256 of 2017 dated 09.07.2019. By the said Judgment the appeal filed by R Prasanth/opposite party was dismissed with detailed reason. While dismissing the appeal it was directed that Appellant shall pay each of the five Respondents cost of the appeal which shall be Rs. 50,000/-
each (Total Rs. 2,50,000/-) it has been argued by Mr. Tiwari, Ld. Counsel that despite direction of this Tribunal which is continuing till date the contemnor has not complied with this order and as such he is in contempt. On being asked as to under Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act, period of limitation is one year and the present application has been filed after more than three years, Mr. Tiwari, Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on a Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1989, Supplementary (2) SCC 418 in the matter of -2- 'Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar vs. Kalu Ram and Ors.' and has drawn our attention to paragraph 7 of the Judgment which is quoted herein below.
"7. Another point was taken about limitation of this application under Section 20 of the Act. Section 20 states that 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 date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In this case, the present application was filed on or about November 3, 1988 as appears from the affidavit in support of the application. The contempt consisted inter alia, of the act of not giving the possession by force of the order of the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Narnaul dated November 3, 1988 (sic February 12, 1988). Therefore, the application was well within the period of one year. Failure to give possession, if it amounts to a contempt in a situation of this nature is a continuing wrong. There was no scope for application of Section 20 of the Act".
On the aforesaid Judgment it has been argued that if the offence in contempt is in continuation, bar under Section 20 will not come into play and as such it has been prayed to initiate contempt proceeding against opposite party/contemnor R Prasanth.
Before proceeding, it is necessary to indicate that contempt is always in between court and contemnor. Even though in case court is satisfied that one has committed contempt, discretion lies with the court either to proceed or drop the proceeding. However, in the present case fact remains that Judgment was passed long back on 09.07.2019 whereas the present petition was filed on 04.08.2022, i.e. more than three years from the date of Judgment. Normally, for initiating contempt proceeding under Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act, one year upper limit time has been prescribed.
Contempt Case (AT) No. 20 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) No. 256 of 2017 -3- The present application was filed not only after expiry of one year but after expiry of three years. Though we may not dispute the submission of Ld. Counsel for the Applicant that contempt is continuing but considering the fact that appeal filed by contemnor was already dismissed with reasoned order and thereafter direction was issued which admittedly has not been complied with but we are of the opinion that after expiry of three years in view of facts and circumstances of the present case it would not be appropriate to initiate contempt proceeding. Accordingly there is no reason to pass any positive order in the present petition. The petition stands disposed of.
This order was passed in the presence of Mr. Rahul, Ld. Proxy Counsel for opposite party No. 1/ contemnor.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar] Member (Judicial) [Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) sr/gc Contempt Case (AT) No. 20 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) No. 256 of 2017