RAMA NARANG versus RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 92 OF 2008
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 389, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Unknown
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
389
RAMA NARANG
v.
RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 92 of 2008
In
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 148 of 2003
In
Civil Appeal No. 366 of 1998
JANUARY 19, 2021
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: s.2(b) – Contempt proceedings
– Scope of – Violation of Consent Order – Petitioner and his sons
(respondents) were the only Directors of a company – Dispute
between petitioner and respondent-sons –  Purported settlement of
the dispute in terms of Consent Order recorded in orders dated 12th
December 2001 and 8th January 2002, of the Supreme Court –
Petitioner-father filed contempt petition alleging that respondent-
sons had violated the terms of the Consent Order – By judgment
dated 15th March, 2007, Supreme Court held respondents guilty of
contempt – Respondents filed Company Petition before the Company
Law Board (CLB), whereupon CLB passed interim order dated 10th
April 2008 – Petitioner filed instant contempt petition alleging that
the order of CLB was violative of the order of Supreme Court dated
15th March 2007 – Whether invoking the jurisdiction of CLB and
entertaining of said proceedings by CLB amounted to contempt –
Held: A person does not commit contempt of court if during pendency
of certain proceedings, he takes recourse to other judicial
proceedings open to him, even though the latter proceedings puts
the other party at a loss – On facts, respondents thought it prudent
to approach CLB by invoking its
powers u/ss.397, 398 and 403 of
the Companies Act – Respondents took recourse to legal remedy
available to them under the statutory provisions in compelling
circumstances to safeguard the interest of the Company and its
stakeholders – Petitioner failed to make out a case of wilful,
deliberate and intentional disobedience of any of the directions
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 389
389
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
390
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
given by Court or acting in breach of undertaking given to Court –
Contempt Petition accordingly dismissed – Companies Act, 1956 –
ss.397, 398 and 403.
Contempt of Court: Contempt proceedings – Nature and scope
of – Held: The contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature
and the standard of proof required is in the same manner as in the
other criminal cases – The alleged contemnor is entitled to protection
of all safeguards/rights which are provided in the criminal
jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt –Punishment under
the law of contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in
disregard of one’s duty and in defiance of authority.
Contempt of Court: Contempt proceedings – Difference from
execution proceedings –  Held: Contempt proceeding is not like an
execution proceeding under the Code of Civil Procedure – Before
punishing the contemnor for non-compliance of decision of the
Court, the Court must not only be satisfied about the disobedience
of any judgment, decree, direction, writ or other process but should
also be satisfied that such disobedience was wilful and intentional
– The civil court however, while executing a decree against the
judgment-debtor is not concerned and bothered as to whether the
disobedience to any judgment or decree was wilful and once the
decree had been passed, it is the duty of the court to execute the
decree, whatever may be the consequences thereof – Code of Civil
Procedure – Execution.
Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction of the Court to pass interim orders
pending decision on question of its’ jurisdiction – Held: Even if
objection is raised to the jurisdiction of a forum, it has jurisdiction
to pass interim orders till it finally decides the issue of jurisdiction
and such orders are binding on the parties till the issue of
jurisdiction is decided – If the Court holds that it has no jurisdiction,
it is open to it to modify the orders – However, while in force, the
interim orders passed by such Court have to be obeyed and their
violation can be punished even after the question of jurisdiction is
decided against the plaintiff, provided violation is committed before
the decision of the Court on the question of jurisdiction – Judgment
/Order – Interim Order.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
391
Civil Contempt: Wilful disobedience or wilful breach – Court
has to record a finding that such a disobedience was wilful &
intentional – There must be a clear cut case of obstruction of justice
by a party intentionally – Where the court is satisfied that such
disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances, under
which it is not possible for the contemnor to comply with the same,
the Court may not punish the alleged contemnor.
Dismissing the contempt petitions, the Court
HELD:1. For bringing an action under the ambit of civil
contempt, there has to be a wilful disobedience to any judgment,
decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful
breach of an undertaking given to the court. [Para 48][422-G;
423-A]
2.1 Such action of a person which he takes in pursuance of
his right to take legal action in a court of law, will not amount to
interfering with the course of justice, even though that may
require some action on the part of the other party in connection
with his own judicial proceedings. The principle is, that a party is
free to take action to enforce his legal right. A person does not
commit contempt of court if during the pendency of certain
proceedings, he takes recourse to other judicial proceedings open
to him, even though the latter proceedings put the other party at
a loss. [Para 68][432-D-F]
2.2 In the instant case, the respondents had legitimately
approached the Company Law Board (CLB) invoking its
jurisdiction
under Sections 397, 398 and 403 of the Companies
Act. The CLB had also passed interim orders in exercise of its
powers under Section 403 of the Companies Act.  Merely taking
recourse to the statutory remedy available to the respondents
would not amount to contempt. It appears, that after the order
was passed by this Court holding the respondents guilty and
thereafter finding, that the present petitioner is not co-operating
with the respondents in running the affairs of the Company, but
on the contrary making every attempt to stall the functioning of
the Company; the respondents thought it prudent to approach
the CLB by invoking its powers under Sections 397, 398 and
403 of the Companies Act. The respondents had to take recourse
to that remedy in compelling circumstances to safeguard the
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
392
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
interest of the Company and its stakeholders. [Paras 66, 71][431-
F-G; 433-D-F]
3. The contempt proceeding is not like an execution
proceeding under the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the parties
in whose favour, an order has been passed, is entitled to the
benefits of such order, but the Court while considering the issue
as to whether the alleged contemnor should be punished for not
having complied with and carried out the directions of the Court,
has to take into consideration all facts and circumstances of a
particular case. That is why the framers of the Act while defining
civil contempt, have said that it must be wilful disobedience of
any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of
the Court. Before punishing the contemnor for non-compliance
of the decision of the Court, the Court must not only be satisfied
about the disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, writ
or other process but should also be satisfied that such
disobedience was wilful and intentional. Though, the civil court
while executing a decree against the judgment-debtor is not
concerned and bothered as to whether the disobedience to any
judgment or decree was wilful and once the decree had been
passed, it was the duty of the court to execute the decree,
whatever may be the consequences thereof. In a contempt
proceeding before a contemnor is held guilty and punished, the
Court has to record a finding, that such disobedience
was wilful
and intentional. If from the circumstances of a particular case,
though the Court is satisfied that there has been a disobedience
but such disobedience is the result of some compelling
circumstances, under which it is not possible for the contemnor
to comply with the same, the Court may not punish the alleged
contemnor. [Para 73][435-D-H]
4. The contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature
and the standard of proof required is in the same manner as in
the other criminal cases. The alleged contemnor is entitled to
the protection of all safeguards/rights which are provided in the
criminal jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt. There must
be a clear-cut case of obstruction of administration of justice by a
party intentionally, to bring the matter within the ambit of the
said provision. Punishment under the law of contempt is called
for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one’s duty
and in defiance of authority. [Para 75][437-C-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
393
5.1 In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to make
out a case of wilful, deliberate and intentional disobedience of
any of the directions given by this Court or acting in breach of an
undertaking given to this Court. On the contrary, the respondents
had taken recourse to the legal remedy available to them under
the statutory provisions. [Para 76][437-C-G]
5.2 Where an objection is taken to the jurisdiction to
entertain a suit and to pass any interim orders therein, the Court
should decide the question of jurisdiction in the first instance.
However, that does not mean that pending the decision on the
question of jurisdiction, the Court has no jurisdiction to pass
interim orders as may be called for in the facts and circumstances
of the case. A mere objection to jurisdiction does not instantly
disable the court from passing any interim orders. It can yet pass
appropriate orders. Though, the question of jurisdiction should
be decided at the earliest possible time, the interim orders so
passed are orders within jurisdiction, when passed and effective
till the court decides that it has no jurisdiction, to entertain the
suit. Those interim orders would undoubtedly come to an end
with the decision that the Court had no jurisdiction. If the Court
holds that it has no jurisdiction, it is open to it to modify the
orders. However, while in force, the interim orders passed by
such Court have to be obeyed and their violation can be punished
even after the
question of jurisdiction is decided against the
plaintiff, provided violation is committed before the decision of
the Court on the question of jurisdiction. [Paras 76-79][438-G-
H; 439-A-C]
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CLB
considered it appropriate, that till the petition is disposed of, as
an interim measure, in the interest of the Company as well as
more than 3000 employees/workers, there should be a mechanism
by which day to day operations are carried out without any hitch.
The said order has not been challenged by the petitioner before
any forum. Any order passed by the CLB was appellable before
the higher forums. The petitioner has not challenged the said
order. Having not challenged the same, it is not open for the
petitioner to argue, that since the petitioner has taken objection
as to maintainability of the proceedings before CLB, the said
orders are without jurisdiction and the initiation of the proceedings
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
and the orders passed thereon, would amount to respondent’s
committing contempt of this Court.  Even if the objection is raised
to the jurisdiction of a forum, it has jurisdiction to pass interim
orders till it finally decides the issue of jurisdiction and such orders
are binding on the parties till the issue of jurisdiction is decided.
However, it should not be construed, that the proceedings under
the CLB were maintainable in law. Since the proceedings are
pending final adjudication, the parties would be at liberty to raise
all issues available to them including the issue of jurisdiction.
Also, this is not a case wherein directions as sought, should be
issued under Article 142 of the Constitution. On Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code 2016, coming in force, the proceedings which
are pending before the CLB, now stand transferred to the
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). It would be appropriate
for the parties to invoke the jurisdiction of NCLT for seeking
such orders as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances in
accordance with law. [Paras 81, 84][440-D-H; 441-C, F-H]
Pratap Singh and Another v. Gurbaksh Singh [1962]
SCR 2 Suppl. 838; Mehar Rusi Dalal (Mrs.) v. T.K.
Banerjee and Others (2004) 5 SCC 119; Niaz
Mohammad and Others v. State of Haryana and Others
(1994) 6 SCC 332 : [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 720 ; Kanwar
Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307 :
[2011] 15 SCR 972; Debabrata Bandopadbyay and
Others
v. State of West Bengal and Another AIR 1969
SC 189 : [1969]  SCR  304 and Tayabbhai M.
Bagasarwalla and Another v. Hind Rubber Industries
(P) Ltd. And Others (1997) 3 SCC 443 : [1997] 2
SCR 152– relied on.
Hrishikesh Sanyal v. A.P. Bagchi ILR 1940 All 710 and
Radhey Lal v. Niranjan Nath AIR 1941 All 95 – held
approved.
Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and Another (2006)
11 SCC 114 : [2006] 3 SCR 1068; Rama Narang (V) v.
Ramesh Narang and Another (2009) 16 SCC 126 :
[2007] 3 SCR 1099; Vijay Laxmi and Others v. Prabhu
Devi and Others (2017) 11 SCC 169; State Bank of
India v. Ajit Jain and Others (1995) 1 Suppl. SCC 683;
Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (The Alleged Contemnor)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
395
(1995) 2 SCC 584 : [1995] 2 SCR 638; Sangramsinh
P. Gaekwad and Others v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad
(Dead) Through LRs and Others (2005) 11 SCC 314 :
[2005] 1 SCR 624; and Kale and Others v. Deputy
Director of Consolidation and Others (1976) 3 SCC
119 : [1976] 3 SCR 202 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 3 SCR 1068
referred to
Para 8
[2007] 3 SCR 1099
referred to
Para 11
[1997] 2 SCR 152
relied on
Para 39
(2017) 11 SCC 169
referred to
Para 40
(1995) 1 Suppl. SCC 683
referred to
Para 40
[1995] 2 SCR 638
referred to
Para 43
[2005] 1 SCR 624
referred to
Para 44
[1976] 3 SCR 202
referred to
Para 44
[1962] 2 SCR Suppl. 838
relied on
Para 68
(2004) 5 SCC 119
relied on
Para 70
[1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 720
relied on
Para 73
[2011] 15 SCR 972
relied on
Para 74
[1969]  SCR 304
relied on
Para 75
INHERENT JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 92
of 2008 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 148 of 2003 in Civil Appeal No.
366 of 1998.
Jayant K. Sud, ASG, Mukul Rohatgi, Jaideep Gupta, Kapil Sibal,
Akhil Sibal, Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Advs, Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Bihu Sharma,
Ms. Pratishtha Vija, Bhargava V. Desai, Ms. Aditi Diwan, S. Uday Kumar
Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Salim Inamdar, Ms. Sweena Nair, M/S.
Lawyer S Knit & Co, D.L. Chidananda, Ms. Menakshi Grover, Arvind
Kumar Sharma, Ms. Sheena Taqui, Kshitij Vaibhav, Mrs. Bina Gupta,
Ms. Suwarna Dubey, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B. R. GAVAI, J.
1. The present contempt petition
arises out of an unfortunate family
dispute between a father on one hand and his two sons from his first
wife on the other hand. This family dispute has given rise to number of
proceedings, some of which have even reached up to this Court.
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
396
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
2. Factual matrix necessary for the adjudication of the present
case is thus:-
The petitioner in the contempt petition Rama Narang was married
to Smt. Motia. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Ramesh Narang and
Rajesh Narang so also Rakesh Narang are sons of the petitioner and
Smt. Motia. The petitioner and Smt. Motia divorced in 1963. The petitioner
thereafter married Smt. Mona. Out of the said wedlock, two sons Rohit
and Rahul as well as a daughter Ramona were born.
3. In a previous round of litigation between these parties, the
respondent No.1- Ramesh Narang had approached this Court by filing a
Contempt Petition (C) Nos.265-67 of 1999 in Contempt Petition (C) No.
209 of 1998 in Civil Appeal Nos.366 of 1998, 603 of 1998 and 605 of
1998. The present petitioner Rama Narang was respondent No.1 in the
said proceedings. This Court passed the following order in the said
proceedings on 2nd November 2001:-
“In Conmt. Pet. (C) Nos.265-267/1999 in Conmt. Pet. (C)
No.209/1998 in Civil Appeal No.366/1998, 603/1998 & 605/
1998.
After hearing Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior
counsel for the alleged contemnor, at length, we are satisfied
that the contemnor has flouted the order of this Court dated
4th May, 1999 by not transferring 50% of the share (and
contending that he could make out the 50% share only by
calculating the shares of NIHPL held by M/s. Fashion Wears
Private Ltd., which have been forbidden by the order dated
22.01.1998). We call upon the contemnor to show cause
regarding the punishment to be imposed on him for which he
shall be present in this Court on 29th November, 2001.
I.A. No.6 in C.P. (C) No.209/1998 in C.A. No.366/1998.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
List all matters on 29th November, 2001.”
4. It appears, that subsequently the matter was settled between
the parties and the parties had placed on record the Minutes of the
Consent Order. It will be apposite to reproduce the entire order passed
by this Court on 12th December 2001:-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
397
“The following cases are pending between the parties who
are parties in the present proceedings before us one way or
the other. We are told that all the parties have settled their
disputes in respect of all the litigations specified below.
1.
O.S. No. 3535 of 1994 before the Bombay High
Court.
2.
O.S. No. 3578 of 1994 before the Bombay High
Court.
3.
O.S. No. 1105 of 1998 before the Bombay High
Court.
4.
O.S. No. 3469 of 1996 before the Bombay High
Court.
5.
O.S. No. 1792 of 1998 before the Bombay High
Court.
6.
O.S. No. 320 of 1991 before the Bombay High Court.
7.
Company Petition No. 28 of 1992 Before the
Principal Bench, Company Law Board, New Delhi.
8.
Arbitration Suit No. 5110 of 1994 before the Bombay
High Court.
Today they filed a document styled it as “MINUTES OF
CONSENT ORDER” signed by all the parties. Learned
counsel appearing on both sides submitted that all the parties
have signed this document. Today except Mona Narang and
Ramona Narang (two ladies), all the rest of the parties are
present before us when these proceedings are dictated. As
for Mona Narang and Ramona Narang learned counsel
submitted that Mona Narang had affixed the signatures and
the power of attorney holder of Ramona Narang has signed
the above document in his presence. This is recorded.
Both sides agreed that all the suits can be disposed of in terms
of the settlement evidenced by “MINUTES OF CONSENT
ORDER” produced before us. For disposal of those cases
and/or for passing
decrees in them we have to pronounce the
final formal order in terms of the settlement now produced
before us.
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
We, therefore, withdraw all the aforesaid suits to this Court
under Article 139-A of the Constitution of India.
Prothonotory and Senior Master of the Bombay High Court
are directed to transmit the records in the above mentioned
suits by special messenger to this court so as to reach the
Registry here within ten days from today. The Bench Officer
of the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board, New Delhi
is directed to forward the records relating to Company Petition
No. 28 of 1992 to the Registry of this Court so as to reach the
Registry within ten days from today.
All the parties have undertaken before us that they will
implement the terms of the “MINUTES OF CONSENT ORDER”
on or before 1.1.2002 and that no further time will be sought
for in the matter.
Clause (f) of the compromise relates to the operation of the
bank accounts. That clause will come into force from today
onwards.
All the afore-mentioned suits and the company petition will
be posted for final formal orders on 8.1.2002 at 10.30 a.m.
along with these contempt proceedings.”
5. The matter came up again before this Court on 8th January
2002. This Court passed the order thus:-
“Pursuant to the order dated 12th December, 2001 the
following suits and company petition have been transmitted
to this court and they are on the file of this court now and
registered as Transferred Cases Nos. 1 to 8 of 2002:
1.
O.S. No. 3535 of 1994 before the Bombay High
Court.
2.
O.S. No. 3578 of 1994 before the Bombay High
Court.
3.
O.S. No. 1105 of 1998 before the Bombay High
Court.
4.
O.S. No. 3469 of 1996 before the Bombay High
Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
399
5.
O.S. No. 1792 of 1998 before the Bombay High
Court.
6.
O.S. No. 320 of 1991 before the Bombay High Court.
7.
Company Petition No. 28 of 1992 Before the
Principal Bench, Company Law Board, New Delhi.
8.
Arbitration Suit No. 5110 of 1994 before the Bombay
High Court.
All the above are now being disposed of in terms of the Minutes
of Consent Order incorporated in the proceedings passed by
us on 12.12.2001.
The decree will be drawn up in terms of the Minutes of the
Consent Order.
In regard to the property (64, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi) which
is the subject matter for O.S. No. 3578/1994 of the High Court
of Bombay Rama Narang, who is present in court, gives an
undertaking that the same would be transferred with clear
and marketable title to Rajesh Narang or his nominee on or
before 31.03.2002. This undertaking is recorded.
In the light of the above developments we deem it necessary
to drop the steps against Rama Narang for contempt pursuant
to the order of this court dated 2.11.2001. We order so.
Similarly all other contempt petitions are dropped and IAs
and Transferred Cases are disposed of.”
It will also be relevant to refer to the Minutes of the Consent
Order, which is a family settlement between all the members of the
family including the parties herein:-
“1. Ramesh’s Suit No.3535 of 1994 [for specific performance
of family settlement] both pending in the Bombay High Court
to be decreed and implemented forthwith.
2. Ramesh’s Suit No. 1105 of 1998
[Fashion Wears] opening
in the Bombay High Court to be decreed and implemented
forthwith; 19184 shared held by FWPL in NIHL are validly
transferred to Ramesh on 27th June 1992 and Ramesh having
already transferred 5194 (12%) shares in the joint names of
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
400
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
Rama and Ramesh on 21st May 1990 directed by order of this
Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 4th May 1999. It is clarified
and agreed that the transfer of 142 additional shares by
Ramesh on 24th May 1999 to the joint names of Rama and
Ramesh is void and the said 142 shares stand restored to the
name of Ramesh. The purported transfer of shares by Rama
on 14th May 1999 in compliance with order dated 4th May
1999 is void. It is further clarified that the transfer by Rama
of 3998 shares to Ramesh pursuant to order dated 4th May
1999 is void and the said 3998 shares stand restored to the
joint names of Mohini, Rama and Mona. It is also clarified
that Ramesh, Rajesh and Rakesh shall have no objection to
the transfer of 403 shares held by FWPL in NIHL to Rama.
3. The following directions issued by this Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the above matter are re-affirmed and agreed to by
the parties as follows:-
(a)
With effect from 4th May, 1999 Rama, Ramesh and
Rajesh are the only Directors of NIHL (and its
subsidiaries). Any increase in the Board of Directors
shall be with the mutual consent of Rama and
Ramesh/Rajesh.
(b)
None of the Directors (Rama, Ramesh and Rajesh)
can be removed from directorship.
(c)
Rama and Ramesh shall continue to be in joint
management and control of NIHL and Rajesh shall
continue to be the Permanent Whole Time Director
thereof in charge of day to day operations/
management.
(d)
No decision shall be adopted
concerning or
affecting the said Company (and its subsidiaries)
without the consent of Rama and Ramesh (or Rajesh)
in writing. It is further clarified and agreed that save
and except as provided herein no prevailing decisions
including appointment of Directors/Executives or any
other persons shall continue unless Rama and
Ramesh (or Rajesh) consent to the same in writing.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
401
(e)
All the collections coming in cash shall continue to
be remitted in the bank accounts of the Company
and all transactions will only be made in the form of
cheques and/or as may hereafter be agreed to
between Rama and Ramesh (or Rajesh).
(f)
All bank accounts of the Company shall continue to
be operated jointly by any two out of the three
Directors namely Rama, Ramesh and Rajesh and/or
as may hereafter be agreed to between Rama and
Ramesh (or Rajesh). If the amount of any transaction
exceeds Rs. 10 (ten) lacs the same shall be
undertaken through a cheque signed jointly by Rama
and Ramesh/Rajesh.
(g)
All statutory record of the Company [and its
subsidiaries] including minutes of Directors Meetings
and/or Shareholders Meetings shall be valid only if
signed jointly by Rama and Ramesh or Rajesh.
(h).
The remuneration and perquisites to which Rama,
Ramesh and Rajesh shall be entitled as Directors
with effect from 4th May 1999 shall be the maximum
permissible under the provisions of the Companies
Act, 1956 and which shall be divided/allocated
between them in equal shares as provided and/or as
may hereafter be agreed to between Rama and
Ramesh [or Rajesh].”
4. Rahul’s Suit No. 3469 of 1996 and Rama’s Suit No. 1792
of 1998 both pending in the Bombay High Court to be
withdrawn.
5. Ramesh’s Company Petition No. 28 of 1992 pending before
the Company Law Board, New Delhi to be withdrawn.
6. Rakesh’s Suit No. 320 of 1991 [who is part of the Rama
Group] to be
compromised and implemented as follows:
“a. Rama shall transfer 5410 shares in NIHL to the sole
name of Rakesh.
b. Rama Group agree and undertake to restore to Rakesh
his residential accommodation on the third floor of the
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
402
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
bungalow at 40, Pali Hill, Bandra, Bombay and consent
to carry out all additions and alterations required by him
therein.”
In consideration of the above Rakesh hereby agrees and
undertakes to ratify and confirm and implement the family settlement
and do all the acts, deeds and things required in that purpose
including;
“a. Transfer 1000 equity shares held by Rakesh in Narang
Overseas Private Limited to Rajesh.
b. Confirm his retirement as partner in the firm of United
Corporation and withdraw his claims referred to arbitration
in Arbitration Suit No. 5110 of 1994.
c. Consent to the transfer of entire undertaking of Bull
Worker Private Limited from FWPL to the Manu Group.
d. Consent to hive off land at Marol, Sahar, Bombay owned
by NIHL admeasuring about 45105.70 square meters to
the Manu Group.
e. Consent to hive off ownership and possession of the
property at 64, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi to Rajesh.”
7. All the above is to be performed by the Rama Group before
01.01.2002.
8. Matter to be listed before this Hon’ble Court on
08.01.2002.”
6. Perusal of the family settlement would reveal, that insofar as
Narang International Hotel Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘NIHL’)
and its subsidiaries are concerned, Rama Narang, Ramesh Narang and
Rajesh Narang were to be the only Directors. Any decision by the Board
of Directors was to be taken only by the mutual consent of Rama Narang
on one hand and Ramesh and Rajesh, on the
other hand. The settlement
also provided, that none of the Directors i.e. Rama Narang, Ramesh
Narang and Rajesh Narang could be removed from the Directorship.
Rama Narang and Ramesh Narang were continued to be in joint
management and control of NIHL and Rajesh Narang was continued to
be whole time Director In-Charge of day-to-day operations and
management of NIHL. It also provided, that no decision shall be taken
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
403
concerning the said NIHL and its subsidiaries, without the consent of
Rama Narang on one hand and Ramesh/Rajesh on the other hand. It is
further provided, that all bank accounts of the Company have to be
operated jointly by any two of the three Directors as agreed between
Rama Narang and Ramesh/Rajesh. It further provided, that if amount
of any transaction was exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs, then the same could be
undertaken only through a cheque singed jointly by Rama Narang on
one hand and Ramesh or Rajesh on the other hand.
7. It appears, that though the matter was settled between the
parties in terms of Minutes of Consent Order as recorded in the orders
dated 12th December 2001 and 8th January 2002, passed by this Court,
there was no quietus to the dispute between the parties. Rama Narang
alleging, that Ramesh and Rajesh had violated the terms of the Consent
Order stipulated in Clause 3 (c), (d), (e) and (f) of the Minutes of the
Consent Order, filed a contempt petition being Contempt Petition(C)
No. 148 of 2003 in Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 265-67 of 1999 in
Contempt Petition (C) No.209 of 1998 in CA No. 366 of 1998. It was
the case of the petitioner Rama Narang, that the violations of the Consent
Order by Ramesh and Rajesh amounted to clear disobedience of the
orders dated 12th December 2001 and 8th January 2002 and thus
punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This Court had
initiated contempt proceedings against the respondents vide order dated
15th September 2003. This Court had also requested Justice V.A. Mohta,
retired Chief Justice of Orissa High Court to act as a Mediator for
settlement of disputes between the parties. However, despite serious
efforts made by the Learned Mediator, the settlement could not be arrived
at.
8. A preliminary objection was taken regarding the maintainability
of the abovesaid contempt petition. According to the respondents Ramesh
and Rajesh, in the absence of any undertaking given to the Court, this
Court could not exercise its jurisdiction on mere violation of the terms of
the Consent Order. The respondents had contended, that the order dated
12th December 2001, had merged in the order dated 8th January 2002
and that they had implemented the said order. A three-Judge Bench of
this Court in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and Another1 rejected
these objections raised by the respondents with regard to maintainability
1 (2006) 11 SCC 114
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
404
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
of the contempt petition. It will be relevant to refer to the following
observations of this Court:-
“33. In the present case, the consent terms arrived at between
the parties were incorporated in the orders passed by the
Court on 12-12-2001 [Ramesh Narang (1) v. Rama Narang,
(2009) 16 SCC 631] and 8-1-2002 [Ramesh Narang
(2) v. Rama Narang, (2009) 16 SCC 600] . The decree as
drawn up shows that order dated 8-1-2002 [Ramesh Narang
(2) v. Rama Narang, (2009) 16 SCC 600] was to be ‘punctually
observed and carried into execution by all concerned’. A
violation of the terms of the consent order would amount to a
violation of the Court’s orders dated 12-12-2001 [Ramesh
Narang (1) v. Rama Narang, (2009) 16 SCC 631] and 8-1-
2002 [Ramesh Narang (2) v. Rama Narang, (2009) 16 SCC
600] and, therefore, be punishable under the first limb of
Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The question
whether the respondents should not be held guilty of contempt
because of any earlier confusion in the law reflected in Babu
Ram Gupta case [(1980) 3 SCC 47 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 527] is
a question which must be left for decision while disposing of
the contempt petition on merits. It may be argued as an
extenuating or mitigating factor once the respondents are held
guilty of contempt. The submission does not pertain to the
maintainability of the petition for contempt. The preliminary
objection raised by the respondents regarding the non-
maintainability of the petition for contempt is, for the reasons
stated, dismissed.”
9. After the preliminary objections raised by the respondents were
rejected, the aforesaid contempt petition was heard by this Court on
merits. The main allegations against the respondents with regard to
violation of Clause 3 (c), are thus:-
(a)
that the high value contracts were executed by issuing
multiple cheques under the value of Rs. 10 lakhs, though,
the contract amount was much more. It was done so as to
overcome the requirement, that for a transaction worth more
than rupees ten lakhs, the cheques had to bear joint
signatures of Rama Narang on one hand and Ramesh or
Rajesh on the other hand;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
405
(b)
the vital information with regard to management of the
Company was withheld and as such the Company was
managed to the complete exclusion of Rama;
(c)
settlement with trade union was unilaterally undertaken by
the respondents and the petitioner was only asked to sign
the enhanced salary cheques, which the petitioner refused
as he was not consulted; and
(d)
it was also alleged, that the respondents had taken unilateral
decisions with regard to appointment and promotion of senior
executives and as such, had acted in clear violation of
Clause 3 (d).
10. The respondents had filed response to the said contempt
petition. It was contended on behalf of the respondents, that the petitioner
was deriving undue advantage from the alleged technical breach of the
consent terms; which too was based on interpretation of the consent
terms contrary to the mutual understanding of the parties. It was
submitted, that the petitioner was attempting to stall the functioning of
the company by trying to use the veto power. It was submitted, that it
was never the intention of the parties, that the petitioner should enjoy the
veto power over the company transactions having value of more than
Rs. 10 lakhs and create a deadlock.
11. However, the Court did not find favour with the submissions
made by the respondents and while rejecting the respondent’s contention,
this Court in its judgment and order dated 15th March 2007 reported as
Rama Narang (V) v. Ramesh Narang and Another2,
observed thus:-
“32. The object of entering into consent terms and jointly
filing the undertaking was to run the family business
harmoniously with the active participation of all as a family
business but the respondents had taken absolute control of
the Company NIHL to the total exclusion of the petitioner. All
the management decisions and other decisions affecting the
Company were taken by the respondent Rajesh Narang, the
whole-time Director under the guise of the day-to-day
operation/management in clear violation of Clause 3(c) of
the consent terms which clearly states that Rama Narang and
Ramesh Narang shall continue to be in joint management and
2 (2009) 16 SCC 126
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
406
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
control. The parties gave undertaking to the Court regarding
the consent terms.
33. The respondents have erroneously submitted that joint
management and control of the Company means giving veto
power to the petitioner. According to the terms of undertaking
the petitioner and the respondents were under an obligation
to run the Company harmoniously with the active participation
of all as a family business but unfortunately the respondents
have taken absolute control to the total exclusion of the
petitioner. This is contrary to the terms of the undertaking
given to this Court.”
12. This Court while convicting the present respondents under
Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act observed thus:-
“52. We have carefully perused the undertaking given by the
parties to the Court and orders of this Court dated 12-12-
2001 [Ramesh Narang (1) v. Rama Narang, (2009) 16 SCC
631] and 8-1-2002 [Ramesh Narang (2) v. Rama Narang,
(2009) 16 SCC 600] based on the undertaking of the parties
given to this Court and other relevant facts and circumstances.
According to our considered view the respondents are clearly
guilty of committing contempt of court by deliberate and wilful
disobedience of the undertaking given by them to this Court.
In this view of the matter, in order to maintain sanctity of the
orders of this Court, the respondents must receive appropriate
punishment for deliberately flouting the orders of this Court.
53.
Consequently, we convict the respondents under Section 2(b) of
the Contempt of Courts Act and sentence them to a simple
imprisonment for a period of two months. We further impose a fine
of Rs 2000 to be deposited by each of them within one week failing
which they shall further undergo imprisonment for one month.”
13. It will also be relevant to refer to para (54) of the said judgment
and order passed by this Court in Rama Narang (V)3 (supra) dated 15th
March 2007:-
“54. We are also not oblivious of the fact that immediately sending
the respondents to jail would create total chaos in the Company
3 (2009) 16 SCC 126
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
407
which would also vitally affect the interests of large number
of people including the employees of the Company. Therefore,
while keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances
of this case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the
respondents is kept in abeyance. We further direct the parties
to meticulously comply with the undertakings given by them
to this Court. In case similar violation of the undertakings
given to this Court is brought to the notice of the Court, in
that event, the respondents shall be sent to jail forthwith to
serve out the sentence imposed in this case.”
14. It could thus be seen, that though this Court held the respondents
guilty of contempt, taking into consideration the fact that immediately
sending the respondents to jail would create total chaos in the Company
and it would also vitally affect the interest of large number of people
including the employees of the Company, the sentence of imprisonment
imposed on the respondents was kept in abeyance. This Court further
directed the parties to meticulously comply with the undertaking given
by them to the Court. It was further observed by the Court, that in case,
similar violations of the undertaking given to this Court, was brought to
the notice of this Court, the respondents shall be sent to jail forthwith to
serve out the sentence imposed in the said case.
15. It appears, that the dispute between the parties not only
continued but got aggravated. Contending that on
account of non-
cooperation by Rama, the functioning of the Company had come to a
standstill, Ramesh filed Company Petition No.47 of 2008 before the
Company Law Board, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘CLB’). It
was contended in the said company petition, that due to non-cooperation
by Rama in signing cheques, the employees could not be paid their salaries
from November 2007 onwards.  It was also contended, that bills for
payment to supplier could also not be paid, due to which, the entire
functioning of the various units of the Company had been seriously
affected. On 14th March 2008, the CLB directed the board meeting of
NIHL to be held on 24th March 2008 at 11.00 AM in the registered
office of the Company. Each of the three Directors were also directed
to circulate a list of items, that they desired to discuss in the meeting, to
the Directors by 18th March 2008. The CLB also appointed Shri C.R.
Das, Former Member of CLB as Observer, to observe the proceedings
of the said meeting. In the said proceedings, Ramesh also filed CA No.194
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
of 2008 on 20th March 2008, pointing out therein, that due to non-payment
of salaries/wages for the months of December 2007 and January 2008,
about two hundred workers at Delhi Flight Catering Unit of the Company
had stopped the work and started protest and agitation.
16. When the matter was listed before CLB on 7th April 2008, the
CLB found, that though the Board met on two consecutive dates totally
for fifteen hours, not a single decision had been taken, in view of each
one holding of his own views/opinion. From the Report of the Observer,
the CLB found, that all the three Directors had adopted a rigid stand
resulting in complete deadlock. The CLB found, that in the proceedings
under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956, it was the interest of
the Company, which was paramount. The CLB noticed, that due to
differences among the Directors, many operational issues like payment
of salaries/wages, payment to supplier etc. were pending, leading to
agitation by employees and irregularities in supply. The CLB found it
appropriate, that till the petition was disposed of, as an interim measure,
in the interests of the Company and more than 3000 employees/workers,
there should be a mechanism by which the day-to-day operations of the
Company were carried on without any hitch. The CLB thus passed the
following order on 10th April 2008:-
“8. Accordingly, as I indicated during the hearing, I appoint
Shri Justice Arvind V.
Savant, Former Chief Justice of Kerala
High Court, who has given his consent, as the Facilitator
(Mobile No. ……..). As the Facilitator, he would try to bring
about a consensus among the directors on matters which are
urgent and essential to ensure that the business of the Company
is carried on smoothly and in case a consensus is not possible,
taking into consideration the views of the three Directors, he
will take a final decision which will be binding on the
Directors and the Company. I make it abundantly clear that
his role will be limited only to operational matters, like, issues
relating to workers/employees of all categories, issues relating
to suppliers/supply contracts, urgent repairs to equipments
etc. These are only illustrative. It will be within his competence
to decide considering the spirit of this order that the business
of the company should be carried on smoothly till the petition
is disposed of, which are urgent/essential operational issues.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
409
17. Alleging, that the order passed by CLB dated 10th April 2008,
was violative of the order of this Court dated 15th March 2007 and nothing
but an attempt to legalize their conduct of contempt, the petitioner
approached this Court by the present contempt petition.
18. It appears, from the Record of Proceedings, that on 15th
December 2008, this Court had heard the counsel for the parties and
reserved the order. The contempt petition was listed before this Court
on 10th February 2009 and on the said date, this Court passed the following
order:-
“We have perused the order dated 27.01.2009.
On 15th December, 2008, this Court heard learned counsel
for the parties at length and reserved the order.
Before this Court could pronounce the order, IA No.1 of 2008
was filed by respondent No.1 in which a prayer was made to
recall the order dated 15th December, 2008. In the said IA
what has been incorporated in para No.2 is reproduced
hereunder:
“Instructions had duly been taken that the Hon’ble Court be
requested to kindly hear the Contempt Petition on merits.
On 15.12.2008, Mr. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel, who
has been appearing in the matter could not be present for
personal reasons. In order not to inconvenience the other
side and this Hon’ble Court, another learned Senior Counsel
had been briefed to argue the case. On that day, your Lordships
were pleased to observe that in case Mr. Nariman was
available on another day, your Lordships might consider
adjourning
the matter for a day or two and the availability of
Mr. Nariman was sought. However, regrettably, on an
erroneous impression, a statement was made without
consulting Mr. Nariman that he would not be available till
January, 2009.”
In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to recall the
order dated 15th December, 2008. We order accordingly.
List this matter on Friday, the 20th February, 2009 before
another Bench.”
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
410
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
19. The matter thereafter came up before this Court on 9th April
2009. Perusal of the order dated 9th April 2009, would reveal, that this
Court, on a query found, that for the last one decade, the Company has
not filed its returns under the Income Tax Act. It also found, that the
Books of Accounts had not been prepared and/or audited. It was also
found, that the requisite financial statements had not been filed before
the Registrar of Companies. The Court noticed, that none of the authorities
had taken any action under the Companies Act or under the Income Tax
Act, 1961. The Court therefore, called for the status of the matter pending
before the Income Tax Authorities. The Court, in order to protect the
interest of the Revenue as well as the workmen, as the first step, directed
M/s K.P.M.G. Chartered Accountants to prepare financial accounts after
verifying the Books. The Court directed both the parties to sign the
accounts, without prejudice to their rights and contentions. The Chartered
Accountant was also directed to consult both the sides. The matter was
directed to be kept on 13th July 2009.
20. On 13th July 2009, again this Court passed a detailed order.
The perusal thereof shows, that the Court directed the Registrar of
Companies and Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to be impleaded in
the proceedings. The Court also observed, that it would also like to know
from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, as to what
action has
been taken against the Company with regard to dues under the Income
Tax Act. The Court also wanted to know as to why assessment has not
been done for all the years, particularly, when the Return/Accounts have
not been filed by the Company. The matter was directed to be listed by
this Court thereafter on 21st July 2009. On 21st July 2009, the Court
considered the Status Report submitted before it, by the Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax. Apology was tendered to the Court by
the Registrar of Companies for not taking action under the Companies
Act. The Court recorded, that both these officers have assured to take
action in accordance with law. The Court also noticed, that apart from
non-compliance of the statutory provisions, the Books of Accounts had
not been audited by the Auditors of Company. The Court therefore, in
order to set the house in order and particularly, keeping in mind the
interest of 3000 workmen as well as exchequer, while invoking powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution, appointed an independent Director,
who was to look into the financial management of the Company and
submit his report to this Court from time to time, on the state of the
Company’s Accounts and due compliance of the statutory provisions of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
411
the Companies Act and Income Tax Act. He was also requested to
suggest steps for good corporate governance, including financial
management in future. The Court therefore, requested Shri Homi Ranina,
a Tax Expert to accept the assignment and submit the Status Report to
this Court, so that appropriate directions could be issued. From the perusal
of the order, it appears, that this Court was more concerned with putting
the house in order before taking the contempt petition for hearing.
21. This Court, however, clarified in its order dated 21st July 2009,
that the same will not come in the way of functioning of Shri Arvind
Savant, Former Chief Justice of Kerala High Court as Facilitator appointed
by the CLB.
22. The contempt petition thereafter came up before this Court
on 29th July 2009. By an order passed on the said date, this Court
requested Shri Ranina to take charge as independent Director and further
clarified that the same would be confinedonly in the context of compliance
of the provisions of the Companies Act as well as the Income Tax Act.
By the said order, this Court directed M/s BSR & Company, Chartered
Accountants to prepare and audit the accounts of the Company and
observed, that its function will not overlap with the functioning of the
Facilitator, who was free to proceed in accordance with law. The Court
further found, that the regular meetings in accordance with the provisions
of the Companies Act have not been held and therefore, charted
out the
functions to be undertaken by Shri Ranina who was appointed as an
independent Director vide order dated 21st July 2009. The directions in
nutshell are thus:-
(i)
Shri Ranina will convene an informal meeting of all the
concerned parties including M/s BSR & Company and at
the said meeting, Shri Ranina was to act only as an advisor
and not as an independent Director of the Company;
(ii)
After going through the relevant papers, Shri Ranina was
to convene one more meeting in which he was to suggest
mode of his induction into the Company as an independent
Director. It was further clarified that, Shri Ranina was not
to be subjected to prosecution which the Court had directed
in its earlier order dated 21st July 2009 with regard to the
action to be taken by the Registrar of Companies against
the Directors for violation of the provisions of Companies
Act;
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
412
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
(iii)
The BSR & Company was to update and audit the Accounts
of the Company. If the BSR & Company found any
impediment, they were to report to Shri Ranina, who in turn,
was to try to resolve the problem himself in the first instance
and if not, to submit a report to this Court;
(iv)
The BSR & Company would also submit the reports on the
status of the accounts from time to time to Shri Ranina. In
case, Shri Ranina found any impediment or difficulty in
carrying out the orders passed by the Court, he would submit
Status Report to this Court through Shri Parag Tripathi.
23. The matter thereafter came up before this Court on 14th
December 2009. This Court noted, that the Accounts of the Company
stood duly audited upto 31st March 2006, whereas accounts of the
subsidiary Companies stood audited upto 31st March 2009. The Court
further noted, that as on that date, there was no compliance of the
provisions of Section 212 of the Companies Act. The Court extended
the time for filing of accounts before Registrar of Companies upto 31st
January 2010. The Court therefore directed, that the proceedings shall
remain pending till further orders.
24. By the same order, the Court appointed Shri Habib Rehman,
Expert in Hotel Management, to advise Shri Ranina from time to time. It
further directed, that in the event of any dispute between the Directors,
the decision taken by Shri H.P. Ranina in consultation with Shri Habib
Rehman, shall be
final and binding on Board of Directors. The matter
was thereafter listed before this Court on 16th April 2010. In the said
order, the Court noted, that pursuant to its order dated 8th February 2010,
the Registrar of Companies had submitted a report on 26th March 2010.
It was found, that the Register of Directors maintained by the Company
was not in conformity with the Court orders/Resolutions, passed by the
Board or Company during the period right from 1990. The court therefore
authorised Shri H.P. Ranina to update the said Register of Directors and
bring it in conformity with the Court Orders and Resolutions passed by
the Board. The said order was passed by the Court without prejudice to
the rights and contentions of the parties appearing before the Court.
25. Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing before the Court
on 3rd May 2010. By order on said date, the Court appointed Shri Syed
Habibur Rehman as an independent Director to manage the affairs of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
413
the Hotel and the flight kitchens on day-to-day basis. M/s J.G. Verma &
Co. was directed to be appointed as Tax Auditors of the Company in
place of M/s BSR & Company. It was clarified that Shri Habibur Rehman
was appointed as an independent Director and shall not be prosecuted
for any violation of the statutory provision. Thereafter, the matter was
listed before this Court on 6th August 2010. By order on said date, the
Court noticed the earlier proceedings and observed, that although number
of steps were taken; even as on that day, the signing of the Accounts
remained pending because of the family disputes between the father
and the sons. The Court noticed, that at the end of the day, the position
remained that some of the provisions of the Companies Act were not
complied with and the Accounts remained unsigned. The Court therefore
directed the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court,
Mumbai, to expedite the hearing and finally dispose of the cases pending
before him. The Court by the said order dispensed with the services of
Shri H.P. Ranina and Shri Syed Habibur Rehman.
26. In the parallel proceedings before the CLB, Rama Narang
had filed Company Application No.57 of 2011 in Company Petition No.
47 of 2008, praying for the discharge of the Facilitator Retired Justice
Arvind V. Savant, on the ground of collusion with the petitioner and the
respondent before the CLB. The Court found no substance in the
allegation made by Shri Rama Narang and
therefore, dismissed the said
CA by imposing exemplary cost of Rs. 1,00,000/. It will be relevant to
refer to paragraph (7) of the order dated 22nd February 2011, as under:-
“7.I therefore dismiss CA 57/2011 while awarding an
exemplary cost of Rs. one lakh against R-2. The cost so
awarded shall be deposited by R-2 in the High Court Legal
Aid Committee, New Delhi within a week from today. The
Facilitator shall now proceed to fix a date for holding meeting
of the Board of Directors for ensuring statutory compliances
and also for acting in furtherance of directions contained in
the Order dated 10.04.2008,12.10.2010 and 22.11.2010 and
send a status report as directed by me in the Order dated
6.1.2011.”
27. It further appears from the record, that Rajesh-respondent
No.2 herein, who was a whole-time Director, filed Company Application
No.223 of 2011 before the CLB in pending Company Petition No. 47 of
2008. It was contended on behalf of the applicant in the application, that
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
414
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
due to non-cooperative attitude of the respondent i.e. the petitioner herein,
the entire functioning of the Company had come to a standstill. It was
further averred, that Rama was making every attempt to put hindrance
in the day to day functioning of the company. As such certain necessary
directions were sought in the interest of the Company so also its workers.
On 28th April 2011, the CLB after considering the rival contentions, passed
the following order:-
“On an overall consideration of the factual scenario while
rejecting the objection raised by learned senior counsel for
R-2 as to the locus of the applicant and considering the
complete, repeated, persistent and deliberate non-cooperation
by R-2 in the smooth functioning of R-1 company and also to
regulate the conduct of the company’s affairs I deem it fit to
grant the relief as prayed for in CA No. 223/2011 and order
that pending the hearing and final disposal of C.P. No.47/08
and in addition to the directions already made in C.P. No.47/
08, in the event of dispute/ disagreement inter se between the
Directors in the Board Meeting on any items on the agenda,
a decision shall be taken by the Facilitator which shall be
final and binding on the Board of Directors and the company.
With the paramount object of smooth running of R-1 the
Facilitator is further empowered to sign cheques/minutes and
statutory records in case of disagreement between or refusal
by any of the
Directors or inability of the Board to take a
decision. Before signing any cheque/ minutes/statutory records
the Facilitator shall record reasons for not agreeing with the
dissenting Director/s or agreeing with the assenting Director/
s.”
28. It appears from the record, that in the emergent situation i.e.
not making payment of electricity bills and the resultant possibility of
electricity supply of the Hotel being disconnected, Company Application
No.610 of 2011 was mentioned before the CLB. It was brought to the
notice of the CLB, that the Facilitator was not able to function and operate
smoothly and therefore, vide order dated 29th November 2011, the CLB,
as a temporary measure, appointed Shri H.S. Acharya as a Special
Officer-cum-Advisor, in addition to the Facilitator already appointed.
The CLB further directed, that since the present Facilitator has stayed
his hands from exercising additional powers given vide order dated 28th
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
415
April 2011, the said powers could be exercised by Shri Acharya until
further orders.
29. Thereafter, by an order dated 30th April 2015, the CLB passed
the following order:-
“16. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, I hereby appoint
Mr. H.P. Ranina as Facilitator cum Advisor by removing Mr.
H.S. Acharya as Administrator cum Advisor. Mr. Ranina has
to act as Facilitator cum Advisor with the powers that were
conferred upon on Mr. Acharya by CLB when he was made
as Facilitator cum Advisor. It is made clear that Mr. Ranina
will not go beyond the powers conferred upon when Mr.
Acharya was appointed by CLB through orders dated
29.11.2011, R1 Company shall not close down flight catering
units without prior permission from Company Law Board.”
It could thus be seen, that by the said order, CLB appointed Shri
H.P. Ranina as Facilitator-cum-Advisor in place of Shri H.S. Acharya
with all the powers that Shri Acharya had as a Facilitator-cum-Advisor.
30. It appears from the record of this Court, that the contempt
petition was listed before various Benches of this Court on various dates.
On 15th March 2016, this court found, that the business of the Company
had come to a standstill and therefore, it was of the tentative view, that
it was a fit case where the Company may be wound up. The Department
of Corporate Affairs therefore was directed to make an enquiry/
investigation into the affairs of the Company and submit its report to the
Court within a period of four
weeks. On 19th April 2016, this Court
granted further eight weeks’ time to enable the Department of Corporate
Affairs to make necessary enquiry and submit a report in terms of the
order dated 15th March 2016. This Court also observed, that it would be
open to the parties to settle the matter and make a mention of the Terms
of Settlement before this Court. On 19th July 2016, this Court directed
the report of the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Ministry of
Corporate Affairs, to be made available to the counsel for both the sides.
It further observed, that if so required, on the next date, the Court will
proceed to appoint an independent Board/Committee to run the affairs
of the Company until appropriate solution to the present impasse between
the Directors is arrived at. On 16th August 2016, the Court directed the
contempt petition to be listed for final disposal in the month of November
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
416
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
2016. It further ordered, that without prejudice to the rights of the
respective parties, the present arrangement for running the affairs of
the Company will continue until further orders. On 29th November 2016,
the matter was directed to be adjourned sine die.
31. From the documents placed on record, it appears, that in the
meantime, the meeting of the Board of Directors of NIHL was held on
30th April 2019. From the Minutes of the Meeting, it would appear, that
one of the subjects that came up for discussion before the Board of
Directors, was with regard to sale of the Companies’ property at 40 Pali
Hill, Bandra West, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bandra
property’) so as to tide over the financial crisis. From the perusal of the
Minutes of the Meeting, it could be seen, that it is stated therein, that the
Bandra property was only non-business asset of the Company. It is further
stated in the Minutes of the Meeting, that if funds were not available, it
would result in closure of the Company’s Flight Catering Business, which
would result in over 3000 persons losing their livelihood as well as create
serious financial and legal challenges. It was suggested in the said
Meeting, that on the sale of the Bandra property, an amount of Rs. 351
crore could be received from Maverick Realty & Developers LLP. In
the said Meeting, the petitioner was also asked by the respondent No.1
as well as the Facilitator, as to
whether the petitioner had any other
suggestions to offer so as to tide over the financial crisis. However, the
petitioner refused to offer any suggestion, as such under the directions
of the Facilitator, the following resolutions came to be passed:-
“RESOLVED THAT pursuant to applicable provisions of the
Companies Act, 2013 as amended from time to time (including
any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof) and any
other applicable rules, regulations, laws, circulars, the
Company do sell its right, title and interest in the property/
non business asset comprising of land admeasuring 2,530
(Two Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty) square meters or
thereabouts along with Bungalow situated at 40 Pali Hill,
Bandra West, Mumbai CTS No. 1345/46/47/48, to Maverick
Realty & Developers LLP for a consideration of
Rs.351,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Hundred and Fifty One
Crores Only) exclusive of stamp duty, registration charges
and applicable taxes based on vacant and peaceful possession
of the said property being made available to the said buyer,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
417
and on such other terms and conditions as may be agreed to
between Maverick Realty & Developers LLP and Mr. Ramesh
Narang, Joint Managing Director of the Company.
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT Mr. Ramesh Narang, Joint
Managing Director of the Company, be and is hereby
authorized to execute, sign, register, modify, required definitive
agreements, documents, papers, deeds, letters, writing, forms
etc. and to do all such acts, deeds, matters and things as may
be required to give effect to the above Resolution.”
32. As per the said Resolutions, the petitioner as well as the
respondent No.1 were required to vacate the said property. However,
since the petitioner along with his other family members did not vacate
the premises, IA No.87565 of 2019 came to be filed seeking directions
to the petitioner along with his family members to vacate the said property.
The said IA also came to be listed before various Benches of this Court.
However, the matter came to be adjourned from time to time. IA as well
as the contempt petition was listed before us on 4th December 2020. On
the said date, we informed the learned counsel for the parties, that we
would hear the main contempt petition as well as the IA for directions
simultaneously. Accordingly, we have heard the learned counsel for the
parties on the main contempt petition as well as the IA for directions at
length on 10th December 2020 and 11th December 2020.
33. Shri Jaideep Gupta, the learned Senior Counsel opened the
arguments on behalf of the contempt petitioner. The learned Senior
Counsel submitted, that the perusal of the orders passed by this Court
dated 12th December 2001 and 8th January 2002, would reveal, that the
respondents were required to run the affairs of NIHL jointly along with
the petitioner. However, they were running the affairs of the Company
totally to the exclusion of the present petitioner. It was further submitted,
that this Court in the judgment reported in Rama Narang4 (supra) had
clearly held, that the contempt petition at the behest of present petitioner
against the present respondents was very much tenable. He further
submitted, that not only this, but the judgment of this Court reported in
Rama Narang (V)5 (supra) would clearly show, that this Court in
unequivocal terms has held, that the present respondents had acted in
breach of the undertaking given to this Court. It is submitted, that though
4 (2006) 11 SCC 114
5 (2009) 16 SCC 126
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
418
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
the respondents were required to run the affairs of NIHL jointly with the
present petitioner, it was clearly found, that they had acted in breach of
the orders of the Court and were running the business totally to the
exclusion of the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel submitted, that
the acts which are alleged to be contemptuous in nature, in the present
proceedings, are identical with the acts which are found to be
contemptuous in the judgment of this Court dated 15th March 2007. He
submitted, that in spite of having been held guilty, similar acts have been
continued by the respondents even after 15th March 2007. He submitted,
that in view of the findings of this Court in its judgment dated 15th March
2007, for the reasons recorded therein, the present respondents are
required to be held guilty for committing contempt of this Court and be
punished in accordance with law.
34. With regard to the application for directions filed by the
respondent No.1 herein, Shri Jaideep Gupta submitted, that such an
application was not tenable in the contempt proceedings initiated by the
petitioner. He submitted, that as a matter of fact, the CLB has no
jurisdiction to pass an order of a nature as passed by it. It is submitted,
that when there was settlement between the parties which has a seal of
approval by this Court, the respondents could not have initiated the
proceedings before the CLB. He submitted, that in any case, the
petitioner
had taken objection with regard to maintainability of the proceedings
before the CLB and the CLB, without deciding the issue regarding
tenability, had passed the interim orders. It is therefore submitted, that
the reliance placed by the respondents on the orders passed by CLB is
of no assistance to their case.
35. Shri Kapil Sibal, the learned Senior Counsel made his
submissions in reply to the contempt petition and in support of the
application for directions. He submitted, that originally Narang’s family
consisted of three brothers, namely Manu, Rama and Rohit. He submitted,
that the Terms of Settlement between various members of the family
was recorded by an order passed by the Bombay High Court on 3rd July
1997. He submitted, that the proceedings arising out of the settlement
had reached up to this Court. This Court vide order dated 4th May 1999,
had called for a report from Justice Lodha, Judge of the Bombay High
Court (as His Lordship then was) with regard to, Rama-petitioner herein
committing contempt of Justice Dhanuka’s order. He submitted, that
after perusal of the report, this Court vide order dated 2nd November
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
419
2001, held the present petitioner guilty for contempt. However, in view
of the subsequent settlement between the parties, the order holding the
present petitioner guilty was recalled.
36. Shri Sibal submitted, that the family settlement between the
parties is in two parts. He submitted, that the first part is with regard to
various suits filed by Ramesh Narang which were withdrawn and
transferred to this Court and decreed by this Court. He submitted, that
the second part of the settlement was with regard to the management of
the Company. The learned Senior Counsel submitted, that the conduct
of the present petitioner was throughout of non-cooperation in the
functioning of the Company. The petitioner, at every stage, was attempting
to put a hindrance so that the functioning of the Company comes to a
standstill. He submitted, that after the orders were passed by this Court
on 12th December 2001 and 8th January 2002, though the petitioner was
required to co-operate, the petitioner refused to do so and in order to run
the affairs of the Company, the respondents were required to do certain
things in the interest of the Company. He submitted, that had the
respondents not done what they had done, the entire business of the
Company would have come to a standstill thereby, depriving the livelihood
of 3000 persons and further resulting into closure of the Company, apart
from incurring various financial and statutory liabilities.
37. Shri Sibal submitted, that
though there was a settlement with
regard to the affairs of the Company, the affairs were required to be
regulated by the statutory provisions and in spite of the settlement,
statutory powers cannot be abridged. He further submitted, that every
Director has a fiduciary responsibility to act for welfare of the Company.
The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted, that since the present
petitioner failed to act for welfare of the Company, the respondents had
no other option but to approach the CLB, seeking certain directions for
smooth functioning of the Company. He submitted, that having already
been found guilty for contempt by the judgment of this Court in Rama
Narang (V) (supra), the respondents bona fide approached the
competent statutory body to seek directions for the smooth functioning
of the Company, so as to ensure the welfare of the Company and its
3000 employees. He submitted, that the order appointing the Facilitator
not only continued from 10th April 2008, but this Court on several occasions
has made it clear, that it was not interfering with the order of CLB
appointing Facilitator. On the contrary, by order dated 16th August 2016,
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
420
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
this Court has clarified, that the present arrangement for running the
affairs of the Company would continue until further orders without
prejudice to the rights of the respective parties. He submitted, that if the
petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the CLB, the remedy
available to him was to challenge the same before the competent authority.
Having failed to avail of that opportunity, it is not open to the petitioner to
now contend that the said orders cannot be given effect to. The learned
Senior Counsel submitted, that the respondents have not taken a single
decision from 2008 onwards without the consent of the Facilitator.
38. Shri Sibal further submitted, that no Director of the Company
has propriety rights over the property owned by the Company. The learned
Senior Counsel further submitted, that the perusal of the Minutes of the
Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 31st December 2001, which
was held in order to give effect to the Consent terms filed before this
Court and the order of this Court dated 12th December 2001, so also the
explanatory statement to the notice for Extraordinary General Meeting
convened on 1st January 2002, would clearly show, that the residential
accommodation provided to Rama Narang and Ramesh Narang at
Company’s Bandra property, was in their capacity as a Director of the
Company. The learned Senior Counsel reiterated, that no Director can
claim ownership over the
Company’s property.
39. Shri Sibal further submitted, that since after 2008, the
respondents have been acting as per the orders passed by the CLB,
which were passed by a competent statutory authority in exercise of the
statutory provisions, by no stretch of imagination, they could be held
guilty for having committed contempt of this Court. The learned Senior
Counsel submitted, that even interim orders passed by the jurisdictional
authorities are binding on the parties as long as they hold the field. The
learned Senior Counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in the case
of Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and Another v. Hind Rubber
Industries (P) Ltd. And Others6, in support of the said proposition.
40. Shri Sibal submitted, that insofar as application of the
respondents is concerned, in order to save the Company from imminent
danger of closure, thereby affecting the livelihood of 3000 workers and
also from statutory and financial repercussions, it was necessary that
this Court exercises powers under Article 142 and directs the contempt
petitioner to comply with the decision of the Facilitator.  He relied on the
6 (1997) 3 SCC 443
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
421
judgments of this Court in Vijay Laxmi and Others v. Prabhu Devi
and Others7 and State Bank of India v. Ajit Jain and Others8 in
support of this proposition.
41. Shri Akhil Sibal, the learned Senior Counsel supplemented the
arguments on behalf of the respondents in the contempt petition/applicants
in the application for directions. He submitted, that insofar as the
allegations made by the petitioner with regard to the respondents
unilaterally entering into labour contracts, grant of increments to the
executives, contract of purchase of equipments etc. are concerned, the
respondents, in order to keep the Company running, were required to
take several decisions between September 2007 and March 2008, in
accordance with the Company Manual. He submitted, that at one point
of time, the labourers went on strike and the contempt petitioner was not
willing to cooperate in running the affairs of the Company, as such certain
emergent decisions were taken during the said period. However, all those
decisions have been ratified by the Facilitator and therefore, no case is
made out to hold the respondents guilty of contempt.
42. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, the learned Senior Counsel made his
submissions in rejoinder. He submitted, that the matter pending before
this Court was only a contempt petition and the IA for directions filed by
the respondents was nothing but an abuse of process of law. He submitted,
that there was no order passed by any competent court directing the
contempt petitioner to vacate the premises. Neither had any authority
approved the Resolutions of the Board of Directors with regard to
vacating the premises at Pali Hill. He submitted, that the Facilitator has
not been appointed by this Court. Though, this Court had earlier appointed
Shri H.P. Ranina and Shri Syed Habibur Rehman, this Court itself vide
order dated 6th August 2010, dispensed with their services. He therefore
submitted, that after 6th August 2010, no Facilitator could have exercised
the powers. He submitted, that the appointment of so-called Facilitator
is not only without jurisdiction but is in breach of the orders passed by
this Court dated 12th December 2001 and 8th January 2002. He therefore
submitted, that the application for directions needs to be dismissed
summarily.
43. Shri Rohatgi reiterated, that since the activities which were
found to be contemptuous by the judgment of this Court in Rama Narang
7 (2017) 11 SCC 169
8 1995 Supp (1) SCC 683
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
422
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
(V)9(supra), have been continued even after the judgment was delivered
by this Court, the respondents are required to be held guilty of having
committed contempt of this Court and punished in accordance with law.
He relied on the judgment of this Court in Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra
(The Alleged Contemnor)10.
44. Shri Rohatgi further submitted, that the family settlements
even in company matters are required to be dealt with differently. He
relied on the judgment of this Court in the cases of Sangramsinh P.
Gaekwad and Others v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead) Through
LRs and Others11 and Kale and Others v. Deputy Director of
Consolidation and Others12.
45. As indicated in the opening paragraphs itself, though initially
only an interlocutory application filed by the respondent No.1 herein for
direction to the petitioner to comply with the Facilitator’s decision was
listed, we intimated the parties that we would hear the contempt petition
as well as the interlocutory application together. As such, we have heard
the learned Senior counsel for the parties at length on both the Contempt
Petition as well as the interlocutory application (IA No. 87565 of 2019)
filed by the respondent No.1.
46. We are of the considered view, that it is appropriate to first
decide the contempt petition itself, inasmuch as the outcome of the
contempt petition will have a bearing on the interlocutory application
filed by the respondent No.1.
47. It
would be apposite to refer to Section 2(b) of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 which reads thus:-
“2. Definitions. - …..
(b) “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any
judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a
court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.”
48. It is thus clear that for bringing an action under the ambit of
civil contempt, there has to be a wilful disobedience to any judgment,
decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach
9 (2009) 16 SCC 126
10 (1995) 2 SCC 584
11 (2005) 11 SCC 314
12 (1976) 3 SCC 119
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
423
of an undertaking given to the court. No doubt, that Shri Rohatgi is justified
in relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rama Narang
(V) (supra) decided on 15th March 2007. In the said judgment, this Court
held, that according to the terms of undertaking, the petitioner and the
respondents were under an obligation to run the company harmoniously
with the active participation of all as a family business but unfortunately,
the respondents had taken over absolute control to the total exclusion of
the petitioner. This Court held, that this was contrary to the terms of the
undertaking given to this Court. Shri Rohatgi asserts, that the acts with
regard to which the present contempt petition has been filed, are identical
to the acts of the respondents, for which, they were held guilty of
contempt. According to him, a fortiori, the present respondents should
also be held guilty for the acts with regard to which, the present contempt
petition has been filed.
49. We will have to consider the correctness of the said submission.
For that, it will be necessary to refer to the events that have taken place
subsequent to the date of the judgment of this Court in Rama Narang
(V)13 (supra) i.e. 15th March 2007.
50. It is the case of the respondents, that the petitioner was
attempting to use the consent terms as a veto to stall the functioning of
the Company. It is their case, that the petitioner was making every attempt
possible to thwart the functioning of
the Company. It is also the case of
the respondents, that the said acts were done with the mala fide intention.
It is their case, that the son of the petitioner from his second wife namely
Rohit Narang is working as the Managing Director of Sky Gourmet
Catering Pvt. Ltd., which Company is a direct competitor with the Flight
Catering business of NIHL. It is their case, that since the petitioner
refused to offer any cooperation for proper functioning of the Company,
the respondent No.1 was compelled to approach the CLB by Company
Petition No. 47 of 2008. The said petition was filed on 10th March 2008.
The petitioner in the said petition had averred, that after the order was
passed by this Court on 15th March 2007, all genuine efforts were made
by the respondents herein, to ensure that the present petitioner should
not have any further grievance regarding exclusion from the management
and control of the Company. It was averred, that however the attitude
of non-cooperation and putting hindrances in the functioning of the
Company by the petitioner continued even thereafter. It was averred,
13 (2009) 16 SCC 126
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
that petitioner Rama was unreasonably withholding his consent even in
routine decisions crucial to the operations of the Company. It was averred,
that the situation had led to complete management deadlock. It was
further averred, that the Company was in a precarious state with unpaid
salaries, employee unrest both at the level of senior executives and skilled
workers.  It was averred, that petitioner Rama was misusing the consent
decree dated 12.12.2001, as a tool of oppression, which had resulted in
mismanagement and which in turn, was detrimental to the interest of the
Company and its shareholders.
51. The said petition filed by the respondent No.1 Ramesh herein
was heard by the Chairman of the CLB on 7th April 2008. The order
was passed in the said proceedings by the Learned Chairman on 10th
April 2008. It is pertinent to note, that petitioner Rama had raised an
objection with regard to maintainability of the said proceedings. Paragraph
(8) of the order which has already been reproduced herein reveals, that
the Chairman, CLB had appointed Shri Justice Arvind V. Savant, Former
Chief Justice of Kerala High Court as a Facilitator. The Facilitator was
to try to bring about a consensus among the Directors on matters, which
were urgent and essential to ensure that the business of the Company is
carried on smoothly. The said order also provided, that in case there was
no consensus after taking into consideration the views
of the three
Directors, the Facilitator will take a final decision, which would be binding
on the Directors and the Company. The order made it clear, that the role
of the Facilitator was limited only to operational matters like issues relating
to workers/employees of all categories, issues relating to suppliers/supply
contracts, urgent repairs of equipments etc. The order also made it clear,
that the spirit of the order was, that the business of the Company should
be carried out smoothly till the petition was disposed of. After the order
was passed by the CLB, the petitioner approached this Court by way of
present contempt petition alleging, that the very filing of the proceedings
before the CLB and entertaining the same by CLB was contemptuous
in nature. It also appears from the record, that the petitioner had also
filed an application for stay of the order passed by the CLB being IA
No. 1 of 2008 in the present proceedings.
52. When the matter was listed before this Court on 21st July
2009, this Court, keeping in mind the interest of 3000 workmen as well
as the exchequer, was of the view, that under Article 142 of the
Constitution, this Court should appoint an independent Director, who will
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
425
look into the financial management of the Company and submit his report
to this Court from time to time, on the state of the Company’s accounts
and due compliance of the statutory provisions of the Companies Act
and Income Tax Act. He was also requested to suggest steps for good
corporate governance including financial management in future. The
Court therefore appointed Shri Homi Ranina, who is a Tax Expert, as an
independent Director of the Company. However, by the said order, this
Court noted, that Shri Arvind Savant, Former Chief Justice of the Kerala
High Court had been appointed as Facilitator by the CLB. The Court
therefore clarified, that the said order will not come in the way of the
functioning of the Facilitator. The Court clarified, that it had requested
Shri Ranina to take charge as an independent Director only in the context
of compliance of the provisions of the Companies Act as well as Income
Tax Act and that function will not overlap with the functioning of the
Facilitator, who was free to proceed in accordance with law. There are
two takeaways from the order of this Court. First, the Court recognised
the continual contrarious attitude of the parties impacting the efficient
management of the Company and the interests of large number of
stakeholders and the need to defuse the stalemate situation by appointing
a Facilitator. Thus, this Court not only did not disapprove the order of the
CLB in appointing a Facilitator but on more than one
occasions observed,
that the orders passed by it would not come in the way of functioning of
the Facilitator. As a matter of fact, the petitioner cannot be heard to
challenge the order of the competent judicial forum regarding appointment
of a Facilitator by way of an I.A. in a contempt petition.
53. The matter again came up before this Court on 29th July 2009.
In the said order, the Court directed M/s BSR & Company, Chartered
Accountants to take necessary measures to update and audit the accounts
of the Company. The Court noted, that it had appointed Shri Homi Ranina
as an independent Director vide order dated 21st July 2009. Since various
statutory provisions had not been complied with for the last several years,
the Court vide the said order also charted out the functions to be
undertaken by Shri Ranina. Again, in the said order, the Court noted, that
the CLB has appointed Shri Arvind Savant, Former Chief Justice of
Kerala High Court as Facilitator. The Court observed, that the order
passed by it on that date, was only confined to compliance of the statutory
provisions of the Companies Act and the provisions of the Income Tax
Act. The Court also clarified, that the work assigned to Shri Ranina as
well as M/s BSR & Company would not overlap with the work of the
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
426
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
Facilitator. It further observed, that in fact the directions issued by this
Court would help the Facilitator.
54. Vide another order dated 14th December 2009, the Court
appointed Shri Habib Rehman, as a Consultant to guide and advise Shri
Ranina from time to time, on such terms and conditions as Shri Ranina
deemed fit. It also provided, that in the event of dispute/disagreement
between the Directors, the decision taken by Shri Ranina, Advisor in
consultation with Shri Habib Rehman shall be final and binding on the
Board of Directors. The Court noted the statements made on behalf of
the counsel for the petitioner Rama, that he will sign notes of accounts,
director’s reports and other statutory documents as may be required by
Shri Ranina for compliance with the statutory provisions. It further
clarified, that if Rama failed to do so, Shri Ranina was authorised to do
so. Vide subsequent order dated 16th April 2010, the Court clarified, that
Rama will comply with the directions given by the Court vide order
dated 14th December 2009. It also clarified, that the said order dated
14th December 2009, was to be implemented by Rama without prejudice
to his rights and contentions in the pending litigation.
55. It further appears from the record, that Company Application
No. 223 of 2011 was filed by respondent No.2-Rajesh before the CLB
in Company Petition No. 47 of 2008. Vide order dated 28th April 2011,
the CLB rejected the
objection raised by the counsel for Rama as to the
locus of the applicant Rajesh (respondent No.2 herein). The CLB after
considering the complete, repeated, persistent and deliberate non-
cooperation by Rama in the smooth functioning of the Company, in order
to regulate the conduct of the Company’s affairs, deemed it fit to grant
the relief as prayed for in Company Application No. 223 of 2011 and
directed, that in addition to the directions already made in Company
Petition No. 47 of 2008, in the event of dispute/disagreement inter-se
between the Directors in the Board meeting on any items on the agenda,
a decision shall be taken by the Facilitator, which shall be final and binding
on the Board of Directors and the Company. With paramount object of
smooth running of the Company, the Facilitator was further empowered
to sign cheques/minutes and statutory records in case of disagreement
between or refusal by any of the Directors or inability of the Board to
take a decision. It further directed, that before signing any cheque/
minutes/statutory records, the Facilitator shall record reasons for not
agreeing with the dissenting Directors or agreeing with the assenting
Directors.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
427
56. Vide order dated 6th August 2010, this Court found, that despite
its various efforts, the position remained unchanged. It will be relevant
to refer to the following observations made by the Court:-
“Although number of steps were taken, even today the signing
of Accounts remains pending because of the family disputes
between the father and the sons. At the end of the day, the
position remains that some of the provisions of the Companies
Act remains non-complied and the Accounts remained
unsigned and, therefore, we have no option but to direct the
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court,
Mumbai, to expedite the hearing and finally dispose of the
cases pending before him.”
Vide the said order, the Court dispensed with the services of Shri
Ranina and Shri Syed Habibur Rehman. The CLB, vide order dated 29th
November 2011, appointed Shri Acharya as Special Officer-cum-Advisor.
Vide another order dated 30th April 2015, Shri Acharya was replaced
with Shri Ranina as the Facilitator-cum-Advisor.
57. It will be pertinent to note, that in the meantime, Company
Application No. 57 of 2011 was filed by petitioner Rama in Company
Petition No. 47 of 2008, praying for discharge of the Facilitator Shri
Justice Arvind Savant. The CLB found, that petitioner Rama was making
attempt after attempt to somehow stop the Facilitator from functioning.
It was observed, that petitioner Rama had made wild, scurrilous and
baseless allegations against the Facilitator.
Therefore, vide order dated
22nd February 2011, the application was rejected with exemplary cost of
Rs. 1 lakh.
58. When the contempt petition was listed before this Court on
16th August 2016, this Court directed the contempt petition to be kept for
final disposal on a Tuesday in the month of November 2016. This Court
further clarified, that without prejudice to the rights of the respective
parties, the present arrangement for running the affairs of the Company
will continue until further orders. It appears, that thereafter the matter
was listed before this Court on 29th November 2016, when this Court
directed the matter to be adjourned sine die. Thereafter, the matter has
come up before this Bench to which reference has already been made
in the earlier paragraphs.
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
59. For considering the rival submissions, it will be relevant to
refer to Sections 397, 398 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956:-
“397. APPLICATION TO TRIBUNAL FOR RELIEF IN
CASES OF OPPRESSION
(1) Any members of a company who complain that the affairs
of the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial
to public interest or in a manner oppressive to any member or
members (including any one or more of themselves) may apply
to the Tribunal for an order under this section, provided such
members have a right so to apply in virtue of section 399.
(2) If, on any application under sub-section (1), the Tribunal
is of opinion-
(a) that the company’s affairs are being conducted in a
manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner
oppressive to any member or members ; and
(b) that to wind up the company would unfairly prejudice
such member or members, but that otherwise the facts
would justify the making of a winding up order on the
ground that it was just and equitable that the company
should be wound up ; the Tribunal may, with a view to
bringing to an end the matters complained of, make such
order as it thinks fit.
398. APPLICATION TO TRIBUNAL FOR RELIEF IN
CASES OF MISMANAGEMENT
(1) Any members of a company who complain –
(a) that the affairs of the company are being conducted in
a manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner
prejudicial to the interests of the company ; or
(b) that a material change
(not being a change brought
about by, or in the interests of, any creditors including
debenture holders, or any class of shareholders, of the
company) has taken place in the management or control
of the company, whether by an alteration in its Board of
directors 2 [***] or manager 3 [***] or in the ownership
of the company’s shares, or if it has no share capital, in its
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
429
membership, or in any other manner whatsoever, and that
by reason of such change, it is likely that the affairs of the
company will be conducted in a manner prejudicial to
public interest or in a manner prejudicial to the interests
of the company; may apply to the Tribunal for an order
under this section, provided such members have a right so
to apply in virtue of section 399.
(2) If, on any application under sub-section (1), the Tribunal
is of opinion that the affairs of the company are being
conducted as aforesaid or that by reason of any material
change as aforesaid in the management or control of the
company, it is likely that the affairs of the company will be
conducted as aforesaid, the Tribunal may, with a view to
bringing to an end or preventing the matters complained of
or apprehended, make such order as it thinks fit.
403. INTERIM ORDER BY TRIBUNAL Pending the making
by it of a final order under section 397 or 398, as the case
may be, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to
the proceeding, make any interim order which it thinks fit for
regulating the conduct of the company’s affairs, upon such
terms and conditions as appear to it to be just and equitable.”
60. Perusal of Section 397 would reveal, that a member of a
Company is entitled to apply to the CLB complaining that the affairs of
the Company were being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the public
interest or in a manner oppressive to any member or members including
anyone
or more of themselves, for an order under the said section. The
only rider is that such a Member should have a right to do so by virtue of
Section 399. Under sub-section (2) of Section 397, if the CLB was of
the opinion, that the Company’s affairs are being conducted in a manner
prejudicial to the public interest or in a manner oppressive to any member
or members and that to wind up the Company would unfairly prejudice
such member or members, but that otherwise the facts would justify the
making of a winding up order on the ground, that it was just and equitable
that the Company should be wound up; it was entitled to make such
order as it thinks fit, with a view to bringing to an end such matter
complained of.
It could thus be seen, that any member of a Company is entitled
to make an application to the CLB complaining that the affairs of the
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
Company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest
or in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Company and the CLB is
empowered to make such order as it thinks fit, with a view to bring to an
end the matter complained of.
61. A similar provision contained in Section 398, enables the
members of a Company to complain, that the affairs of the Company
are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or in a
manner prejudicial to interest of the Company. It also enables a member
to complain with regard to material change which has taken place in the
management and control of the Company and by reason of such change,
it is likely that the affairs of the Company will be conducted in a manner
prejudicial to the public interest or to the interest of the Company. Again,
the only rider is, that such a member must have a right to apply by virtue
of Section 399. Perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 398 would further
reveal, that if such an application was made under sub-section (1) of
Section 398 and if the CLB was of the opinion, that the affairs of the
Company are being conducted as aforesaid, the Tribunal may, with a
view to bringing to an end or preventing the matter complained of or
apprehended, is entitled to make such orders as it thinks fit.
62. Perusal of Section 403 would reveal, that the CLB is also
entitled to make any interim order pending making by it of a final
orderunder
Section 397 or 398, on an application of any party to the
proceedings, which order it thinks fit for regulating the conduct of the
Company’s affairs. Such an order has to be made on such terms and
conditions as appears to CLB to be just and equitable.
63. The respondents had legitimately invoked the jurisdiction of
CLB invoking the aforesaid powers under Sections 397, 398 and 403 of
the Companies Act, to which they were entitled to in law and were not
restrained to do so by any competent Court/forum.
64. The CLB vide order dated 10th April 2008, in Company Petition
No. 47 of  2008 found, that it was necessary to appoint a Facilitator in
the interest of the Company. Immediately after the said order was passed,
the petitioner has filed the present contempt petition. Along with the said
contempt petition, the petitioner has also filed IA No. 1 of 2008 seeking
stay of the said order. A subsequent application, being IA No. 2 of 2008
was also filed by petitioner Rama seeking stay of the proceedings before
CLB and the communications/directions passed by the Facilitator.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
431
However, perusal of the record would reveal, that no orders were passed
on the said IAs. On the contrary, perusal of the record would reveal,
that this Court vide order dated 21st July 2009, though had appointed
Shri Homi Ranina, a Tax Expert, as an independent Director, for ensuring
due compliance of the statutory provisions, it noted, that Shri Arvind
Savant, Former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, had been
appointed as a Facilitator by the CLB. The Court clarified, that the said
order will not come in the way of the functioning of the Facilitator. Vide
another order dated 29th July 2009, this Court while issuing various
directions, before concluding the order again noted, that the CLB had
appointed Shri Arvind Savant, Former Chief Justice of the Kerala High
Court as a Facilitator and clarified, that the order passed by it appointing
Shri Ranina as an independent Director and directing M/s BSR &
Company, Chartered Accountants, to take necessary measures and to
update and audit the accounts, was confined to compliance of the statutory
provisions of the Companies Act as well as the Income Tax Act. The
Court clearly observed, that the work assigned to Shri Ranina and M/s
BSR & Company will not overlap with the work of the Facilitator. It
further observed, that in fact the above directions will help the Facilitator.
65. Vide another order dated 28th April 2011, the CLB issued
certain directions thereby giving additional powers to the Facilitator
including signing of cheques/minutes and statutory records, in case of
disagreement between the parties. This Court vide order dated 16th
August 2016, observed thus:-
“Without prejudice to the rights of the respective parties, the
present arrangement for running the affairs of the Company
will continue until further orders.”
66. It could thus be seen, that the respondents had legitimately
approached the CLB invoking its jurisdiction under Sections 397, 398
and 403 of the Companies Act. The learned CLB had also passed interim
orders in exercise of its powers under Section 403 of the Companies
Act. The petitioner had approached this Court immediately after the
order dated 10th April 2008, was passed by the CLB by way of present
contempt petition. Along with the contempt petition, IA No. 1 of 2008
was also filed for stay of the order passed by CLB. Subsequently, another
IA No. 2 of 2008 was also filed seeking stay of the proceedings before
CLB and the communications/directions passed by the Facilitator.
However, no orders have been passed by this Court on the said IAs.
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
67. It is the main contention of the petitioner, that invoking the
jurisdiction of the CLB and entertaining the said proceedings by the
CLB, itself amounts to contempt.
68. It will be relevant to refer to the observations of this Court in
the case of Pratap Singh and Another v. Gurbaksh Singh14. This
Court after referring to various judgments of the High Courts, observed
thus:-
“The principle behind all these cases is that such action of
the person which he takes in pursuance of his right to take
legal action in a Court of law or in just making a demand on
the other to make amends for his acts will not amount to
interfering with the course of justice, even though that may
require some action on the part of the other party in
connection with his own judicial proceeding, as a party is
free to take action to enforce his legal rights.”
It could thus be seen, that this Court has held, that such action of
a person which he takes in pursuance of his right to take legal action in
a court of law, will not amount to interfering with the course of justice,
even though that may require some action on the part of the other party
in connection with his own judicial proceedings. The principle is, that a
party is free to take action to enforce his legal right. This Court has
approved the view taken by Allahabad High Court in Hrishikesh Sanyal
v. A.P. Bagchi15 and Radhey Lal v. Niranjan Nath16, that a person
does not commit contempt
of court if during the pendency of certain
proceedings, he takes recourse to other judicial proceedings open to
him, even though the latter proceedings put the other party at a loss.
69. In the present case, undisputedly, the respondents were entitled
to invoke the jurisdiction of the CLB under Sections 397, 398 and 403 of
the Companies Act. The CLB has passed the order on 10th April 2008
appointing a Facilitator and further passed order dated 28th April 2011,
enhancing the powers of the Facilitator. Perusal of the orders passed by
this Court dated 21st July 2009 and 29th July 2009, would reveal, that
though this Court had appointed independent Director, it is clarified, that
the independent Director’s functioning would not come in the way of
14 1962 SCR Supp. (2) 838
15 ILR 1940 All 710
16 AIR 1941 All 95
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
433
the functioning of the Facilitator. On the contrary, by order dated 29th
July 2009, this Court observed, that the appointment of Shri Ranina as
independent Director would facilitate the functioning of the Facilitator,
appointed by the CLB.
70. It will also be relevant to refer to a dictum of this Court in
Mehar Rusi Dalal (Mrs.) v. T.K. Banerjee and Others17:-
“2. In our view, every party has a right to move a court of
law for adjudication of his rights. Mere filing of proceedings
in a court of law and applying to a court of law that the
payment may not be made would not amount to breach of
undertaking. We, therefore, see no reason to punish for
contempt. The contempt notice will stand discharged. There
will be no order as to costs.”
71. As such, merely taking recourse to the statutory remedy
available to the respondents, in our view, would not amount to contempt.
With regard to the reliance placed by the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner on the judgment of this Court in Rama Naranag (V)18 (supra),
we are of the view, that it would not be of assistance to the case of the
petitioner, inasmuch as, at that stage, there were no orders passed by
the CLB. It appears, that after the order was passed by this Court holding
the respondents guilty and thereafter finding, that the present petitioner
is not co-operating with the respondents in running the affairs of the
Company, but on the contrary making every attempt to stall the functioning
of the Company;
the respondents thought it prudent to approach the
CLB by invoking its powers under Sections 397, 398 and 403 of the
Companies Act. The respondents had to take recourse to that remedy in
compelling circumstances to safeguard the interest of the Company and
its stakeholders. It was not in strict sense remedy for seeking personal
relief, much less to defeat the terms of settlement recorded in a dispute
between private parties who incidentally are Directors of the same
Company.
72. Perusal of the company petition filed by the respondents before
the CLB and the order dated 10th April 2008, passed by CLB would
reveal, that a specific reference has been made to the order passed by
this Court holding the respondents guilty for committing contempt (vide
17 (2004) 5 SCC 119
18 (2009) 16 SCC 126
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
Rama Narang (V)19). We are therefore of the view, that the said
judgment would be of no assistance to the case of the present petitioner.
73. Apart from that, for bringing an action for civil contempt, the
petitioner has to satisfy the court that there has been a wilful disobedience
of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of the
Court. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph (9) of the judgment of this
Court in Niaz Mohammad and Others v. State of Haryana and
Others20:-
“9. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) defines “civil contempt”
to mean “wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree,
direction, order, writ or other process of a court …”. Where
the contempt consists in failure to comply with or carry out
an order of a court made in favour of a party, it is a civil
contempt. The person or persons in whose favour such order
or direction has been made can move the court for initiating
proceeding for contempt against the alleged contemner, with
a view to enforce the right flowing from the order or direction
in question. But such a proceeding is not like an execution
proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure. The party in whose
favour an order has been passed, is entitled to the benefit of
such order. The court while considering the issue as to whether
the alleged contemner should be punished for not having
complied with and carried out the
direction of the court, has
to take into consideration all facts and circumstances of a
particular case. That is why the framers of the Act while
defining civil contempt, have said that it must be wilful
disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ
or other process of a court. Before a contemner is punished
for non-compliance of the direction of a court, the court must
not only be satisfied about the disobedience of any judgment,
decree, direction or writ but should also be satisfied that such
disobedience was wilful and intentional. The civil court while
executing a decree against the judgment-debtor is not
concerned and bothered whether the disobedience to any
judgment, or decree, was wilful. Once a decree has been
19 (2009) 16 SCC 126
20 (1994) 6 SCC 332
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
435
passed it is the duty of the court to execute the decree whatever
may be consequence thereof. But while examining the
grievance of the person who has invoked the jurisdiction of
the court to initiate the proceeding for contempt for
disobedience of its order, before any such contemner is held
guilty and punished, the court has to record a finding that
such disobedience was wilful and intentional. If from the
circumstances of a particular case, brought to the notice of
the court, the court is satisfied that although there has been a
disobedience but such disobedience is the result of some
compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for
the contemner to comply with the order, the court may not
punish the alleged contemner.”
It can thus be seen, that this Court has held, that the contempt
proceeding is not like an execution proceeding under the Code of Civil
Procedure. It has been held, that though the parties in whose favour, an
order has been passed, is entitled to the benefits of such order, but the
Court while considering the issue as to whether the alleged contemnor
should be punished for not having complied with and carried out the
directions of the Court, has to take into consideration all facts and
circumstances of a particular case. It has been held, that is why the
framers of the Act while defining civil contempt, have said that it must
be wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or
other process of the Court.
It has been held, that before punishing the
contemnor for non-compliance of the decision of the Court, the Court
must not only be satisfied about the disobedience of any judgment, decree,
direction, writ or other process but should also be satisfied that such
disobedience was wilful and intentional. Though, the civil court while
executing a decree against the judgment-debtor is not concerned and
bothered as to whether the disobedience to any judgment or decree was
wilful and once the decree had been passed, it was the duty of the court
to execute the decree, whatever may be the consequences thereof. In a
contempt proceeding before a contemnor is held guilty and punished, the
Court has to record a finding, that such disobedience was wilful and
intentional. It has been held, that if from the circumstances of a particular
case, though the Court is satisfied that there has been a disobedience
but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances,
under which it is not possible for the contemnor to comply with the
same, the Court may not punish the alleged contemnor.
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
74. It will also be apposite to refer to the following observations
of this Court in Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi21, taking a
similar view:-
“30. In an appropriate case where exceptional circumstances
exist, the court may also resort to the provisions applicable in
case of civil contempt, in case of violation/breach of
undertaking/judgment/order or decree. However, before
passing any final order on such application, the court must
satisfy itself that there is violation of such judgment, decree,
direction or order and such disobedience is wilful and
intentional. Though in a case of execution of a decree, the
executing court may not be bothered whether the disobedience
of the decree is wilful or not and the court is bound to execute
a decree whatever may be the consequence thereof. In a
contempt proceeding, the alleged contemnor may satisfy the
court that disobedience has been under some compelling
circumstances, and in that situation, no punishment can be
awarded 
to 
him.[See Niaz 
Mohammad v. State 
of
Haryana [(1994) 6 SCC 332], Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin
Hasan Daya [(2004) 1 SCC 360: AIR 2004 SC 942] and Rama
Narang v. Ramesh Narang [(2006) 11 SCC 114 : AIR 2006
SC 1883].] Thus, for violation of a judgment or decree
provisions of the criminal contempt are not attracted.”
75. It will also be appropriate to refer to the further observations
made by this Court in para (38) of the said judgment:-
“38. The
contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature,
the standard of proof required is in the same manner as in
other criminal cases. The alleged contemnor is entitled to the
protection of all safeguards/rights which are provided in the
criminal jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt. There
must be a clear-cut case of obstruction of administration of
justice by a party intentionally to bring the matter within the
ambit of the said provision. The case should not rest only on
surmises and conjectures. In Debabrata Bandhopadhyaya 
v. State of W.B. [AIR 1969 SC 189 : 1969 Cri LJ 401] , this
Court observed as under: (AIR p. 193, para 9)
21 (2012) 4 SCC 307
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
437
“9. A question whether there is contempt of court or not is
a serious one. The court is both the accuser as well as the
judge of the accusation. It behoves the court to act with
as great circumspection as possible making all allowances
for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from
inveterate practices in courts and tribunals. It is only when
a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable
otherwise, arises that the contemnor must be punished. …
Punishment under the law of contempt is called for when
the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one’s duty and
in defiance of authority. To take action in an unclear case
is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures
and is not to be encouraged.”(emphasis added)”
This Court has observed, that the contempt proceedings are quasi-
criminal in nature and the standard of proof required is in the same
manner as in the other criminal cases. The alleged contemnor is entitled
to the protection of all safeguards/rights which are provided in the criminal
jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt. There must be a clear-cut
case of obstruction of administration of justice by a party intentionally, to
bring the matter within the ambit of the said provision. The Court has
also referred to the observations made by this Court in the case of
Debabrata Bandopadbyay and Others v. State of West Bengal and
Another22, wherein it was observed, that punishment under the law of
contempt is called for when the
lapse is deliberate and in disregard of
one’s duty and in defiance of authority.
76. In the present case, we are of the considered view, that the
petitioner has failed to make out a case of wilful, deliberate and intentional
disobedience of any of the directions given by this Court or acting in
breach of an undertaking given to this Court. On the contrary, we find
that the respondents had taken recourse to the legal remedy available to
them under the statutory provisions. No doubt, Mr. Rohatgi has argued,
that the proceedings before the CLB are itself without jurisdiction.
77. In this regard, it will be appropriate to refer to following
observations of this Court in the case of Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla
(supra). After scanning the entire law, the Court observed thus:-
22 AIR 1969 SC 189
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
438
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
“28. The correct principle, therefore, is the one recognised
and reiterated in Section 9-A — to wit, where an objection to
jurisdiction of a civil court is raised to entertain a suit and to
pass any interim orders therein, the Court should decide the
question of jurisdiction in the first instance but that does not
mean that pending the decision on the question of jurisdiction,
the Court has no jurisdiction to pass interim orders as may
be called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. A
mere objection to jurisdiction does not instantly disable the
court from passing any interim orders. It can yet pass
appropriate orders. At the same time, it should also decide
the question of jurisdiction at the earliest possible time. The
interim orders so passed are orders within jurisdiction when
passed and effective till the court decides that it has no
jurisdiction to entertain the suit. These interim orders
undoubtedly come to an end with the decision that this Court
had no jurisdiction. It is open to the court to modify these
orders while holding that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit.
Indeed, in certain situations, it would be its duty to modify
such orders or make appropriate directions. For example, take
a case, where a party has been dispossessed from the suit
property by appointing a receiver or otherwise; in such a
case, the Court should, while holding that it has no
jurisdiction to entertain the suit, put
back the party in the
position he was on the date of suit. But this power or obligation
has nothing to do with the proposition that while in force,
these orders have to be obeyed and their violation can be
punished even after the question of jurisdiction is decided
against the plaintiff provided the violation is committed before
the decision of the Court on the question of jurisdiction.”
78. This Court has held, that the correct principle therefore is
that, where an objection is taken to the jurisdiction to entertain a suit and
to pass any interim orders therein, the Court should decide the question
of jurisdiction in the first instance. However, that does not mean that
pending the decision on the question of jurisdiction, the Court has no
jurisdiction to pass interim orders as may be called for in the facts and
circumstances of the case. It has been held, that a mere objection to
jurisdiction does not instantly disable the court from passing any interim
orders. It has been held, that it can yet pass appropriate orders. Though,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
439
this Court has observed, that the question of jurisdiction should be decided
at the earliest possible time, the interim orders so passed are orders
within jurisdiction, when passed and effective till the court decides that it
has no jurisdiction, to entertain the suit. It has been held, that those interim
orders would undoubtedly come to an end with the decision that the
Court had no jurisdiction. This Court has held, that if the Court holds that
it has no jurisdiction, it is open to it to modify the orders. However, it has
been held, that while in force, the interim orders passed by such Court
have to be obeyed and their violation can be punished even after the
question of jurisdiction is decided against the plaintiff, provided violation
is committed before the decision of the Court on the question of
jurisdiction.
79. Apart from that, it is to be noted that in the present case, the
petitioner has raised an objection with regard to tenability of the
proceedings before the CLB. It will be relevant to refer to the observations
made by CLB in its order dated 10th April 2008:-
“Shri Gopal Jain once again raised the issue that without
deciding on the maintainability of the petition, no interim order
should be passed. In a proceeding under Sections 397/398 of
the Act, it is now well settled that only if the maintainability is
challenged either in terms of Section 399 or the jurisdiction
of this Board, challenges on other grounds have to be
considered along
with the merits of the case. In the present
case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner qualifies under
Section 399 of the Act and this Board has the jurisdiction to
deal with the petition under Sections 397/398 of the Act.
Further, in a proceeding under Sections 397/398, it is the
interest of the company which is paramount. It is quite evident
from the various annexure enclosed with the petition that due
to differences among the directors, many operational issues,
like, payment of salary/wages, payment to suppliers etc. are
pending resulting in agitation by the employees and
irregularities in supplies etc. Therefore, I consider it
appropriate that till the petition is disposed of, as an interim
measure, in the interests of the company, over 3000 employees/
workers, there should be a mechanism by which the day to
day operations are carried on without any hitch.” [emphasis
supplied]
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
440
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
80. It could thus be seen, that though the counsel for the present
petitioner had raised an issue that without deciding on the maintainability
of the petition, the interim order could not be passed, the CLB observed,
that under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, it is well settled,
that only if the maintainability is challenged either in terms of Section
399 or jurisdiction of the CLB, challenges on other grounds have to be
considered along with the merits of the case. It further observed, that in
the present case, it was admitted fact, that the petitioner qualified under
Section 399 of the said Act and that the CLB has jurisdiction to deal with
the petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act. It further observed,
that in the proceedings under Sections 397/398, it is the interest of the
Company which is paramount. It observed, that it was quite evident
from the various annexures enclosed with the petition, that due to
differences among the Directors, many operational issues concerning
the management of the Company like payment of salary/wages, payment
to suppliers etc. were pending, resulting in agitation by the employees
and irregularity in supplies. The CLB therefore considered it appropriate,
that till the petition is disposed of, as an interim measure, in the interest
of the Company as well as more than 3000 employees/workers, there
should be a mechanism by which day to day operations are carried out
without any hitch.
81. It is not in dispute, that the aforesaid order has not been
challenged by the petitioner before any forum. The observations referred
hereinabove are indisputably adverse to the case of the petitioner. Any
order passed by the CLB was appellable before the higher forums.
Undisputedly, the petitioner has not challenged the said order. Having
not challenged the same, in our view, it is not open for the petitioner to
argue, that since the petitioner has taken objection as to maintainability
of the proceedings before CLB, the said orders are without jurisdiction
and the initiation of the proceedings and the orders passed thereon, would
amount to respondent’s committing contempt of this Court. In our view,
the argument needs to be rejected, in view of the judgment of this Court
in the case of Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla (supra). This Court in
unequivocal terms has held, that even if the objection is raised to the
jurisdiction of a forum, it has jurisdiction to pass interim orders till it
finally decides the issue of jurisdiction and such orders are binding on
the parties till the issue of jurisdiction is decided. As could be seen from
the order of the CLB dated 10th April 2008, though the CLB by referring
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
441
to Sections 397, 398 and 399 of the Companies Act, prima facie, has
observed, that only if maintainability is challenged either in terms of
Section 399 of the Companies Act or on the ground of jurisdiction of the
Board, the same will have to be considered first and challenges on other
grounds, had to be considered along with the merits of the case. The
CLB has further observed, that it was an admitted fact, that the petitioner
qualifies under Section 399 of the Act and the Court has the jurisdiction
to deal with the petition under Section 397 or/and 398 of the Act. Having
chosen not to challenge the aforesaid observations of the CLB, in our
view, the argument advanced deserves no merit and needs to be rejected.
However, it should not be construed, that we have held that the
proceedings under the CLB were maintainable in law. Since the
proceedings are pending final adjudication, the parties would be at liberty
to raise all issues available to them including the issue of jurisdiction.
82. In the result, we are of the considered view, that the present
contempt petition is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed, and
is accordingly dismissed.
83. That leaves us with Interlocutory Application No. 87565 of
2019 filed by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1, by the said
application is seeking direction to the petitioner to abide by the decision
of the Facilitator dated 30.04.2019.
84. Having held, that the present contempt petition deserves no
merit
and is liable to be dismissed, we find that such an application need
not be entertained. Indeed, the respondents may be well-advised to take
recourse to the remedies available to them in law. We do not wish to
express any opinion one way or the other in that regard. Though, Shri
Kapil Sibal has strenuously argued, that this Court should invoke powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution and issue directions to the contempt
petitioner, we find, that this is not a case wherein directions as sought,
should be issued under Article 142 of the Constitution. On Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code 2016, coming in force, the proceedings which are
pending before the CLB, now stand transferred to the National Company
Law Tribunal (NCLT). It would be appropriate for the parties to invoke
the jurisdiction of NCLT for seeking such orders as deemed fit in the
facts and circumstances in accordance with law.
RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
442
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
85. Without going into the merits and demerits of the said
application, we dispose of the same relegating the parties to the statutory
remedy available to them in law.
86. All pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Devika Gujral
Contempt petitions dismissed.