MEDIMEX TRADECOM PRIVATE LIMITED vs BIJAY MURMURIA
- Court
- Calcutta High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
CO 941 OF 2026
MEDIMEX TRADECOM PRIVATE LIMITED
VS.
BIJAY MURMURIA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D.N. Sharma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Debartha Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. B. Parasramka, Adv.
Ms. Ankita Sikdar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Ms. Manju Bhuteria, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Parikshit Poddar, Adv.
Last Heard on : 11.05.2026
Judgment on : 11.05.2026
OM NARAYAN RAI, J.:-
1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails an
order dated March 10, 2026 passed by the learned National Company Law
Tribunal (hereafter “the NCLT”), Kolkata Bench whereby three applications
for contempt being Cont. A (IBC) No. 1 (KB)/2026, Cont. A (IBC) No. 2
(KB)/2026, Cont. A (IBC) No. 4 (KB)/2026 have been dismissed by the NCLT
with the observation/direction that “There should not be any impediment on
the part of the Liquidator to conclude the sale process with execution of sale
certificate in favour of Successful Auction Purchaser”.
Page 1 of 13
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The facts which are relevant for the present purpose may be briefly
recounted.
3. The petitioner has approached the NCLT by filing an application being I.A.
(IBC) No. 1284/KB/2024 (hereafter “interlocutory application”) praying for
certain reliefs as indicated therein while alleging inter alia that the liquidator
i.e. the opposite party herein has interfered with the petitioner’s possession
in respect of certain plots of land. By the said application, the petitioner has
also challenged an e-auction notice dated June 04, 2024 published by the
liquidator thereby putting on sale the assets and properties of the corporate
debtor i.e. Amrit Hatcheries Private Limited.
4. On the said application an interim order was passed by the NCLT on July
03, 2024 thereby, permitting the auction to be held on the scheduled date
but restraining the finalization of the sale till the matter would be heard out.
5. The sale that was initially scheduled to be held on July 04, 2024, as
indicated in the e-auction notice which has been impugned in the said
interlocutory application, fell through for wants of bids. Thereafter, a fresh
e-auction notice was published on February 03, 2025 for sale of certain
properties. Bids were received in respect of the properties mentioned in Lot 1
of the said notice. A subsequent sale notice was published on June 25, 2025
thereby putting the building and the structure of the corporate debtor’s
factory on sale. A single bid was received in respect of the said building and
the structure that had been put on auction by the said notice dated June
25, 2025.
Page 2 of 13
6. On March 10, 2025, letters of intent were issued to the successful bidders in
respect of the auction conducted pursuant to the e-auction notices
published on February 03, 2025 and June 25, 2025.
7. On December 10, 2025 i.e. after the letters of intent had been issued, the
petitioner filed an application being Cont. A (IBC) No. 2 (KB)/2026 alleging
violation of the order dated July 03, 2024 passed by the NCLT in the
aforesaid interlocutory application.
8. The said application has been turned down by the NCLT by the order
impugned dated March 10, 2026 upon issuing certain further directions as
already indicated hereinabove. Hence, the present revisional application.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
9. Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits
that the NCLT has evidently exceeded jurisdiction in passing the order
impugned inasmuch as by such order, the NCLT has effectually set aside
the interim order dated July 03, 2024 that had been passed by it on the
aforesaid interlocutory application. It is submitted that the NCLT had
permitted e-auction to be continued but restrained finalization of sale by the
order dated July 03, 2024. However, the order impugned does away with
such restraint and renders the petitioner’s application challenging the sale
infructuous.
10. Relying on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Embassy Property Developments Private Limited vs. State of
1
Karnataka & Others , he submits that although, the order impugned
could have been carried in appeal before the National Company Law
1
(2020) 13 SCC 308
Page 3 of 13
Appellate Tribunal (hereafter “NCLAT”) yet, since the NCLT has exceeded
jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, therefore, this Court can
entertain the revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
11. He next cites a judgment of the Hon’ble Division of this Court in the case of
2
Brahma Deo Mishra vs. State of West Bengal & Others for the
proposition that while deciding an application for contempt, the Court would
have no power to modify the original order.
12. He has taken the Court through the order impugned to demonstrate that the
order dated July 03, 2024 had been passed on the interlocutory applications
that had been filed by the petitioner as well as other applicants who were
similarly circumstanced alleging illegalities on the part of the liquidator. It is
submitted that an interim order passed on such interlocutory application
could not have been interfered with by the NCLT while dealing with an
application alleging violation of the aforesaid interim order by the opposite
party.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
13. Ms. Bhuteria, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party
submits that the revisional application should not be entertained by this
Court.
14. She takes this Court through the petitioner’s pleadings in paragraphs 47 to
51 of the revisional application and submits that the petitioner has
approached this Court alleging that as time was too short for the petitioner
to approach the NCLAT, therefore, the petitioner had no other avenue but to
2
2018 SCC OnLine Cal 16094
Page 4 of 13
approach this Court by way of the present application under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
15. It is submitted that the excuse given by the petitioner for approaching this
Court by way of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
while bypassing the statutory appellate remedy is not at all tenable
inasmuch as, appeals are being filed before the NCLAT online and the same
are being entertained by the NCLAT even if the same are defective, provided
urgency is satisfactorily demonstrated.
16. She relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay
3
Kumar Bhalla & Others vs. Prakash Kumar Dixit in support of her
contention that if an order is passed by a Court touching upon the merits of
a matter while exercising contempt jurisdiction, such order would be
appealable before the Appellate Court.
17. She referred to Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 to demonstrate that
the jurisdiction to punish for contempt of its orders that is being exercised
by NCLT is akin to that exercised by this Court. She indicated that in such
view of the matter, going by the ratio of Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Others
(supra), appeal before the NCLAT was the only remedy available to the
petitioner and not an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
18. She further submits that in any case, in view of the findings returned by the
NCLT while deciding the application alleging contempt of its order, the NCLT
was justified in passing the order impugned thereby holding that there was
3
Civil Appeal Nos. 8129-8130 of 2024, decided on July 29, 2024
Page 5 of 13
no impediment on the part of the liquidator to conclude the sale process by
executing sale certificate in favour of the successful auction purchaser.
19. It has been further submitted by Ms. Bhuteria, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the opposite party that after passing of the order impugned,
sale certificate has been issued in favour of the successful auction
purchaser on March 12, 2026 and possession has also been given to the
successful auction purchaser.
REJOINDER OF THE PETITIONER:
20. Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has taken
the Court through the grounds stated in the revisional application and
submitted that the order dated March 10, 2026 has been challenged on the
ground of the NCLT having exceeded its jurisdiction in passing directions
touching upon the merits of the interlocutory application, while hearing
contempt applications.
21. It is submitted that the pleadings in paragraphs 47 to 51 of the revisional
application would not prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India if a case for exercise of such
jurisdiction is made out.
ANALYSIS & DECISION:
22. Heard the learned Senior Advocates appearing for the respective parties and
considered the material on record.
23. The first question that is to be answered is as to whether this Court can
entertain the present revisional application in the facts of the present case
when an appellate remedy is available to the petitioner before NCLAT. It is
now well settled that an alternative remedy is not a complete bar on exercise
Page 6 of 13
of plenary constitutional powers by this Court under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India provided the grounds for exercise thereof are
satisfied.
24. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Embassy Property
Developments Private Limited (supra) is highly instructive in such
context. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka was justified in entertaining a writ petition
in a case where the NCLT had chosen to exercise a jurisdiction not vested in
law.
25. It is also well settled that availability of statutory remedy is not a complete
bar and an application under Article 227 of the Constitution can be
entertained despite availability of such remedy in cases where there is an
error apparent on the face of record that has resulted in grave injustice or
where a tribunal has either assumed jurisdiction which it does not have or
has failed to exercise jurisdiction which it has or has exercised its
jurisdiction in a perverse manner.
26. Viewed from such perspective, if it is found that the NCLT has exceeded its
jurisdiction in issuing directions touching upon the merits of the
interlocutory application or in effectually setting aside an interim order
passed on such interlocutory application then this Court can certainly
interfere with such an order.
27. The petitioner’s assertion that the NCLT acted without jurisdiction is
sufficient to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, even if the primary motivation for the filing the
Page 7 of 13
revisional application was a perceived delay in reaching the NCLAT as
indicated in paragraphs 47 to 51 of the revisional application.
28. It is evident from the order dated March 10, 2026, that the same has been
passed by the NCLT upon considering the three applications for contempt
only and not the interlocutory application. Consequently, it cannot be
doubted that while passing the said order, the NCLT was exercising
contempt jurisdiction and not the substantive jurisdiction over the
interlocutory application.
29. It is now well-settled that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold
the majesty and dignity of the courts of law. While exercising such
jurisdiction, the Court must confine itself to the four corners of the order in
question. In such cases, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the
order has been willfully and deliberately violated or not.
30. In making such a determination, it is not open to the Court to touch upon
the merits of the matter, much less to make observations that amount to
setting aside the very interim order of which contempt is alleged.
31. In such context, the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
in the case of Jhareswar Prasad Paul & Another vs. Tarak Nath
4
Ganguly & Others may be noted:-
“ 11. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the
courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the
greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will
suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has
been introduced under the statute for the purpose of securing the feeling of confidence
of the people in general for true and proper administration of justice in the country. The
power to punish for contempt of court is a special power vested under the Constitution
4
(2002) 5 SCC 352
Page 8 of 13
in the courts of record and also under the statute. The power is special and needs to be
exercised with care and caution. It should be used sparingly by the courts on being
satisfied regarding the true effect of contemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in mind that
the court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an
original or appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties. The
contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any
deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is
alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising
contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt
with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the
applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and
not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained.
At the cost of repetition, be it stated here that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction
is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which is
alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the
judgment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction
regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it
will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter
for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking
upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by
the court passing the judgment or order. If this limitation is borne in mind then
criticisms which are sometimes levelled against the courts exercising contempt of court
jurisdiction “that it has exceeded its powers in granting substantive relief and issuing
a direction regarding the same without proper adjudication of the dispute” in its
entirety can be avoided. This will also avoid multiplicity of proceedings because the
party which is prejudicially affected by the judgment or order passed in the contempt
proceeding and granting relief and issuing fresh directions is likely to challenge that
order and that may give rise to another round of litigation arising from a proceeding
which is intended to maintain the majesty and image of courts.”
(Emphasis supplied)
32. The following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
5
Special Deputy Collector (LA) vs. N. Vasudeva Rao & Others also
deserve notice in the present context:-
5
(2007) 14 SCC 165
Page 9 of 13
“ 12. In Lalith Mathur v. L. Maheswara Rao [(2000) 10 SCC 285] it was inter alia
held as follows: (SCC p. 286, para 3)
“3. The above will show that the High Court has directed the State Government to
absorb the respondent against a suitable post either in a government department or in
any public sector undertaking. This order, in our opinion, is wholly without jurisdiction
and could not have been made in proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act or
under Article 215 of the Constitution.”
(Emphasis supplied)
33. Similarly in Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman & Managing Director, Oil &
Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Others vs. M. George Ravishekaran
6
& Others the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
“ 19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for
contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could
even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very
nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the
greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not,
adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self-determination of the sweep,
meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts
must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have
been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the
judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are
explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account
for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or
wilful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of
equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt
plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or
appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been
already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the
domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions
vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear to be the
cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad
Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly [(2002) 5 SCC 352 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 703] , V.M. Manohar
Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju [(2004) 13 SCC 610 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 907] , Bihar Finance
6
(2014) 3 SCC 373
Page 10 of 13
Service House ConstructionCoop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami [(2008) 5 SCC 339]
and Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV [(2006) 1 SCC 613].”
(Emphasis supplied)
34. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has echoed the same observations
in the case Brahma Deo Mishra (supra):-
“ 8 . Furthermore, if the impugned order is to be read as an order passed in contempt
jurisdiction, we are of the view that the Learned Trial Judge erred in law in modifying
a mandatory order passed in the writ jurisdiction subsequently in the contempt
jurisdiction. In the contempt jurisdiction, either the power of the writ Court is to hold the
contemnors or reject contempt petition. Power of modification of an order passed in
contempt, which is sought, is not available to the Trial Judge.”
35. In such view of the matter, the direction contained in paragraph 12 of the
order impugned, is clearly in excess of the contempt jurisdiction that the
NCLT was exercising.
36. In so far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay
Kumar Bhalla & Others (supra) is concerned, the same sums up the
principles as regards the avenue of appeal against orders passed in exercise
of the contempt jurisdiction by the Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
in the said judgment clarified that when the Court exercising contempt
jurisdiction passes an order touching upon the merits of the matter then an
intra-court appeal (if such appeal is provided for) would be maintainable.
37. In the case at hand, it cannot be contested that the order impugned is
appealable, insofar as the same touches upon the merits of the interlocutory
application. However, since the directions in paragraph 12 of the impugned
order have been issued while the NCLT was dealing with a contempt matter,
which is a special jurisdiction, such direction has indeed been made in
excess of its contempt jurisdiction as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Page 11 of 13
the cases of Jhareswar Prasad Paul (supra), N. Vasudeva Rao (supra),
Sudhir Vasudeva (supra) and Brahma Deo Mishra (supra).
38. Since the direction contained in paragraph 12 of the order dated March 10,
2026 passed by the NCLT has been found to be without jurisdiction, for the
reasons indicated hereinabove, the said portion of the order (i.e. direction
contained in paragraph 12 thereof) is set aside.
39. However, since the interlocutory application challenging the liquidator’s
actions is pending before the NCLT, therefore, notwithstanding the setting
aside of the direction contained in paragraph 12 of the order dated March
10, 2026 passed by the NCLT, this Court is not inclined to direct status quo
ante in the facts of the present case where the auction purchaser, who is a
third party to the proceeding, has been issued sale certificate and given
possession in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 12 of the
impugned order, which has now been set aside .
40. Keeping in mind the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit (which
provides that an act of Court would prejudice none and which is applicable
even to cases where the Court would not have taken the relevant decision if
it was correctly apprised of the facts and the law), this Court observes that
since the petitioner’s application assailing the actions of the liquidator being
I.A. (IBC) No. 1284/KB/2024 is pending before the NCLT, therefore, the
issuance of sale certificate and all subsequent actions taken pursuant to the
order impugned shall abide by the result of the said interim application
pending before the NCLT.
41. It is clarified that the NCLT shall decide the aforesaid interlocutory
application on its own merits without being influenced by any observation
Page 12 of 13
made in the order dated March 10, 2026, touching upon the merits of the
pending interlocutory application and it will be open to the NCLT to reach
any conclusion, that can be appropriately reached in accordance with law,
based on the merits of the application and the facts of the case, including
any conclusion previously reached in the impugned order.
42. It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the matter since the portion of the impugned order that has been
set aside by this order has been so done only on the ground of NCLT having
exceeded jurisdiction.
43. With the aforesaid observations, C.O. 941 of 2026 stands disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
44. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the
parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Om Narayan Rai, J.)
D/L: 225
Rohit, A.R.(Ct.)
Page 13 of 13