THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.1871 OF 2010 IN COMPANY APPEAL NO.18 OF 2010 DATED: 19.04.2011 Between : Mr. Ravi Sanghi .. Petitioner And Mr. Sudhir Sanghi and 11 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.1871 OF 2010 IN COMPANY APPEAL NO.18 OF 2010 ORDER: The respondent No.7 in Company Appeal No.18 of 2010 filed this contempt case to punish the respondents 1 & 2 herein (appellants in Company Appeal No.18 of 2010) for the alleged wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court in Company Appeal No.18 of 2010, dated 15.12.2010. Company Appeal No.18 of 2010 was allowed along with Company Appeal No.18 of 2010 by common judgement dated 15.11.2010 holding as under: “In the instant case, apparently the Company Law Board had ignored the material facts placed on record by the respondents 2 to 5 which in turn resulted in wrong inferences in favour of the respondent No.7. The failure of the Company Law Board to exercise the discretion conferred under law reasonably and judicially, particularly its failure to make a proper decision on consideration of the proposals of the rival groups on merits as directed by this Court in Company Appeal Nos.10 & 14 of 2010, in my opinion rendered the impugned order perverse and arbitrary warranting interference under Section 10F of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the Company Law Board in passing the impugned order had not only failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred under law but also had gone beyond the scope of the remand order passed by this Court in Company Appeal Nos.10 & 14 of 2010. Hence the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside in toto. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Company Appeals are allowed remanding the matter to the Company Law Board for consideration afresh of the proposals made by the rival groups and render a decision thereon strictly in terms of the directions of this Court in the Common Judgment dated 1.10.2010 in Company Appeal Nos. 10 & 14 of 2010. It is made clear that the contributions that have already been made by the respondents 7 and 8 pursuant to the order under Appeals for revival of the working capital of 1st respondent company shall not be disturbed and the parties are at liberty to seek appropriate directions in that regard depending on the fresh decision that may be taken by the Company Law Board on the proposals made by the rival groups. There shall also be a direction to the Company Law Board to complete the enquiry in the light of the observations made above and pass appropriate orders afresh as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 31.01.2011. The Appeals are accordingly allowed with the above directions. No costs.” It is alleged in this contempt case that on 15.12.2010 the respondents 1 and 2 herein and their henchmen came to the plant of M/s. Sanghi Polyesters Limited and threatened and abused all the employees and terrorized each and everyone. They also tried to remove the stock and to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner in Allahabad Bank. The acts of the 1st respondent in terrorizing the shareholders and employees and ransacking the company with goondas was in violation of the direction of this Court not to disturb the contributions made by the petitioner for revival of the company. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, all the allegations have been denied and it is stated that as a matter of fact the petitioner was not allowing the respondents 1 & 2 to enter the factory premises by locking the gates and by engaging hired professional goons and others who were terrorizing the respondents 1 & 2 and other employees of the company. It is also alleged that on 25.12.2010 the petitioner and the respondent No.9 through their henchmen attacked the respondents 1 & 2 with lathis, knives and etc and injured them. A complaint was lodged before P.S., Hayatnagar in regard to the said attacks and it was registered as Crime No.687 of 2010. As an after-thought and counter-blast, the petitioner lodged Crime No.688 of 2010 on the file of P.S., Hayatnagar against the respondents 1 & 2 making all false allegations. Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. Having regard to the allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties in their affidavits, it appears to me that the present contempt case is the outcome of personal enmity between the parties, who are closely related. At any rate, I am not inclined to entertain this Contempt Case on the basis of such allegations which are seriously in dispute. Accordingly the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 19.04.2011 gbs