LI Network
Published on: October 18, 2023 at 16:25 IST
The Supreme Court of India has taken a significant step by initiating contempt proceedings against two members who were part of a bench at the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). This action follows allegations that the NCLAT bench defied an order issued by the apex court last week.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, expressed their prima facie view that Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Judicial), and Dr. Alok Srivastava, Member (Technical) of the NCLAT, should face contempt proceedings for “wilfully” disregarding directions passed by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court issued show-cause notices to these two members of the appellate tribunal, asking them to explain why they should not be held in contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
In a decision made using powers granted under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment delivered by the two-member NCLAT bench on October 13. The court firmly stated that parties should not employ “devious” means to avoid compliance with orders from the apex court.
The Supreme Court further directed that the appeal should be heard anew by a bench presided over by the Chairperson of the NCLAT. It clarified that the apex court did not delve into the merits of the conflicting contentions of the parties.
On October 13, the Supreme Court had ordered the Chairperson of the NCLAT to investigate the actions of a bench at the appellate tribunal that had allegedly defied the Supreme Court’s order.
The Supreme Court emphasized that this order was issued under “extraordinary circumstances.” The NCLAT bench, consisting of Rakesh Kumar and Dr. Alok Srivastava, proceeded to deliver the judgment despite a clear mandate from the Supreme Court instructing the appellate tribunal to announce its judgment in the pending appeal after being informed that the Annual General Meeting’s results had been declared.
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and N.K. Kaul had informed the Supreme Court that the petitioner had requested the NCLAT not to deliver the judgment until the scrutinizer’s report was available. The Supreme Court noted that if this information was accurate, it would constitute a clear defiance of its order by the NCLAT.
The report prepared by the NCLAT’s Chairperson will specifically verify whether the Supreme Court’s order was brought to the attention of the two-member bench at the appellate tribunal.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on October 30.
