Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. The learned Counsel contended that the contempt which is alleged against the respondents is a continuing contempt since the failure to repay the deposits as ordered is being continued, therefore, it is a continuing cause of action and question of limitation does not arise. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian . It is stated that the contention that there is no statutory obligation to the 1st respondent to repay the amount is misleading and incorrect. It is stated that every officer including the directors of the company shall be jointly and severally responsible for due compliance of the scheme order, more so, when they have filed affidavits before the Company Law Board for obtaining such an order. It is stated that the Company Law Board can exercise its discretion for framing a scheme order by rescheduling the repayment of deposits. But, such discretion was exercised by the Company Law Board in the light of the affidavits filed by the 1st respondent as well as its group companies, assuring the repayment, therefore, it is not open to the 1st respondent to contend that he is not obligated to comply the order to repay the deposits.

120. In fact, it was the contention of the petitioners that the cause of action for the present contempt proceedings is a continuous, since the order of the Company Law Board contemplates the respondents to pay the amount over a period of 36 months from the date of maturity or from the date of the order. In fact, in the present case, by the date of the order, the amounts deposited by the petitioner were not matured, but they were matured and payables on a subsequent date i.e.28.04.2001.

121. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian . The Apex Court was considering about the period of limitation with reference to contempt proceedings. The Apex Court held that contempt proceedings can be initiated either on Court's own motion which must be by issuing a notice or it can be initiated 'otherwise' than on the Court's own motion which must be by a party filing a petition before the Court, drawing Court's attention regarding commission of contempt within a period of one year from the date on which contempt is alleged to have been committed. Proceedings otherwise than on Court's own motion can be said to have been initiated only on issuance of show-cause notice by Court, where application is to be filed before Advocate-General or a Law Officer, then proceedings are initiated on the making of that application.