Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.33 seconds)
1. Sri K.Vamsi Chandra vs 1. M/S. Gharonda Builders And ... on 4 March, 2026 cites

Niaz Mohammad And Others, Etc. Etc. vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 September, 1994

Arrest under Section-72 is penal in nature and requires wilful non-compliance. The Petitioners also must prove deliberate disobedience on the part of the Respondents. Arrest and detention are coercive modes of execution and can be used only when there was means to pay and there was deliberate refusal. The learned counsel for the Respondents 1, 2 & 5 further relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Niaz Mohammad and Ors Vs. State of Haryana and Ors, (MANU/SC/0063/1995), wherein it was held that, "contempt jurisdiction is distinct from execution proceedings and that mere non-compliance does not automatically amount to contempt. It must be established beyond reasonable 17 doubt that the disobedience was deliberate and intentional. Financial constraints and compelling circumstances rendering compliance difficult are relevant considerations while determining wilfulness."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 76 - N P Singh - Full Document

Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd vs Suresh Chand Khandewal & Anr on 29 August, 2013

32. However, the Respondent No.2 was the Managing Partner of the firm, in-charge of the day to day affairs of the firm responsible for financial management and execution of the Agreement of Sale. Though every partner is jointly and severally liable for the acts of the firm, a Managing Partner stands on a strong footing being the 20 controlling authority of the firm. Thus his liability was not merely technical, but direct and operational. Filing insolvency proceedings does not automatically create a moratorium or grant immunity from penal consequences. As Insolvency Petition is only pending and the same was not admitted adjudicating the Respondents as insolvent, there was no statutory protection available to them. The judgment of the High Court of Maharashtra in SREI Equipments Finance Limited Vs. Rajesh Bajirao Khandewar & Ors., is not applicable to the facts of this case as in that case, the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench admitted the insolvency resolution process and imposed moratorium under Section-14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and sanctioned the resolution plan of the Petitioner Company. In the present case there was no adjudication by the court adjudging the Respondents 1and 2 as insolvents. Even under Section-14 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it only bars recovery proceedings but does not automatically stay criminal/penal proceedings. Thus penal consequences under Section-72 of the Consumer Protection Act continue to operate. As the material on record would disclose that the Respondent No.2 while acting as the Managing Partner, collected the sale consideration from the Petitioners and utilized the funds in the course of his business and failed to refund or comply with the order, his wilful default is evident. Filing Insolvency Petition indicates his attempt to defeat execution and not his genuine inability.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - N Patherya - Full Document
1   2 3 Next