RAMA NARANG versus RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 92 OF 2008

RAMA NARANG versus RAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 92 OF 2008

The Court held that respondents' invocation of CLB jurisdiction under Sections 397, 398 and 403 of the Companies Act and reliance on interim orders appointing a Facilitator did not constitute civil contempt of the Supreme Court because petitioner failed to prove wilful, deliberate and intentional disobedience of the Court’s directions or an undertaking; interim CLB orders are binding while in force and parties had statutory remedies which petitioner did not pursue; accordingly the contempt petitions were dismissed.

Parties
Petitioner: Rama Narang; Respondent: Ramesh Narang; Respondent: Rajesh Narang
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Contempt Petition (civil) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Contempt petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Civil Contempt, Interim Orders and Jurisdiction, Sections 397/398/403 Companies Act, 1956, Appointment of Facilitator, Article 142 and Transfer to NCLT
Contempt of Court Company Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Civil Contempt Interim Orders and Jurisdiction Sections 397/398/403 Companies Act, 1956 Appointment of Facilitator +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rama Narang

Petitioner

Ramesh Narang

Respondent

Rajesh Narang

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition (civil) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether invocation of Company Law Board jurisdiction and interim orders by CLB/Facilitator amounted to civil contempt of Supreme Court orders
  2. 2 Standard of proof and mens rea requirement for civil contempt (wilful and intentional disobedience)
  3. 3 Whether interim orders passed by another forum are binding while question of that forum's jurisdiction is pending

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that respondents' invocation of CLB jurisdiction under Sections 397, 398 and 403 of the Companies Act and reliance on interim orders appointing a Facilitator did not constitute civil contempt of the Supreme Court because petitioner failed to prove wilful, deliberate and intentional disobedience of the Court’s directions or an undertaking; interim CLB orders are binding while in force and parties had statutory remedies which petitioner did not pursue; accordingly the contempt petitions were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Contempt petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Contempt petitions dismissed
  • Interlocutory Application No.87565 of 2019 disposed relegating parties to statutory remedies and to invoke the jurisdiction of NCLT as appropriate