Venkatachalam Varanasi vs 1) Mr. Upender Kumar Agarwal S/O Sh Basudev Agarwal

Court
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Case type
Company Appeal(AT)(Ins)
Decided on
06-04-2026
<div> <b>NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL </b><br /> <b>AT CHENNAI </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 189 / 2026 </b><br /> <b>(With Defects) </b><br /> <b>In the matter of: </b> <br /> <b>Venkata Chalam Varanasi, </b><br /> <b>Bankruptcy Trustee, </b><br /> Resident of No. 12-13-205, Street No. 2, <br /> Tarnaka, Secunderabad – 500 017 <b> </b> <b> </b> <b>.… Appellant </b> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <br /> <b>V </b><br /> <br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>Mr. Upender Kumar Agarwal, </b><br /> S/o. Sh Basudev Agarwal, <br /> Sri Rama Nilayam, Plot No.99, <br /> Road No.72, Prashasan Nagar Jubilee Hills, <br /> Hyderabad - 500033, Telangana <b> ....Respondent </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>Present : </b> <br /> <br /> For Appellant : Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, Advocate <br /> <br /> For Respondent : No Appearance <br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>O R D E R </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>(Hybrid Mode) </b><br /> <b>06.04.2026: </b><br /> <b>Oral Judgment : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial): </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> The Appellant herein in the instant Company Appeal had filed an <br /> Application IA (IBC) No 951 / 2025, in CP (IB) / 246 / 95 / HDB / 2021, seeking <br /> an appropriate direction as against the Respondent to co-operate with the <br /> Appellant / Applicant to furnish the statement of the financial position mandated <br /> in terms of Section 129 of the Code to be read with Regulation 12 of IBBI <br /> <br /> Comp App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 189 / 2026 Page <b>1</b> of <b>5</b> <br /> <br /><br /> (Bankruptcy Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Regulations, <br /> 2019. <br /> 2. After having considered the argument extended by the Ld. Counsel for the <br /> Applicant, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority had proceeded to pass an order on <br /> 23.06.2025, passed in IA (IBC) / 951 / 2025, issuing directions to the Respondents <br /> to extend all assistance and co-operation to the Appellant / Applicant Bank / <br /> Bankruptcy Trustee and to provide the Applicant Bank / Bankruptcy Trustee and <br /> to provide the statement of financial positions, while also observing that the <br /> failure to do so, may invite appropriate action under the law. <br /> 3. Alleging its non-compliance, the Appellant filed a Contempt Petition, <br /> being Contempt Application (IBC) / 19 / 2025, alleging thereof that, the order <br /> passed on IA (IBC) / 951 / 2025, as preferred in CP(IB) / 246 / 95 / HDB / 2021 <br /> has not been complied with. <br /> 4. But surprisingly, the Appellant has chosen to file the said Contempt <br /> Petition under Section 425 of the Companies Act, to be read with Rule 11 of the <br /> NCLT Rules, 2016, as well as, invoking the provisions contained under Section <br /> 10 &amp; 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. <br /> 5. Ld. Tribunal after considering the contentions raised by the Appellant in <br /> the Application preferred for drawing a contempt proceedings under Section 10 <br /> &amp; 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, had proceeded to reject the <br /> <br /> Comp App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 189 / 2026 Page <b>2</b> of <b>5</b> <br /> <br /><br /> Application by the impugned order dated 20.01.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the <br /> instant Company Appeal, has been preferred by the Appellant. <br /> 6. The powers to draw contempt proceedings by Tribunals / Appellate <br /> Tribunals has been contemplated under Section 425 of the Companies Act, which <br /> states that the Tribunals / Appellate Tribunals will have the same power, <br /> jurisdiction and authority in respect of contempt of themselves as the High Court <br /> has and may exercise under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. <br /> Thus, the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, will be applicable in <br /> totality over the contempt proceedings initiated under Section 425 of the Act. <br /> 7. In that eventuality, when a Tribunal passes order in the Contempt Petition <br /> filed before it, under Section 425 of the Companies Act, Appeal against the same <br /> will have to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 of the <br /> Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. <br /> 8. In the instant case, Ld. Tribunal did not find merit in the Application for <br /> contempt preferred by the Appellant and rejected, the same by passing the <br /> Impugned Order. Therefore, Appeal against the said Impugned Order will have <br /> to be dealt with as per the provisions of Section 19 of the Contempt of the Courts <br /> Act, 1971. Section 19(1) envisages Appeal against, only those orders where a <br /> punishment has been inflicted for contempt. In the instant case, no punishment <br /> has been awarded. Hence, Appeal against such order is not maintainable. <br /> <br /> <br /> Comp App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 189 / 2026 Page <b>3</b> of <b>5</b> <br /> <br /><br /> 9. The reasons behind the same are very clear. It is a settled principle of law <br /> that, an Applicant to the Contempt proceedings is simply an informer to the <br /> Tribunal(s) or the Court(s), informing the Court, about the alleged non-<br /> compliance of the Order passed by it, and the need to draw a contempt <br /> proceedings to inflict punishment for such non-compliance as contemplated <br /> under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In the present case, the Tribunal has <br /> found that no orders has been deliberately violated and hence, proceeded to <br /> dismiss the Contempt Petition by the impugned order of 20.01.2026. <br /> 10. Dismissal of the Contempt Petition is an exclusive prerogative of the <br /> Tribunal, and after filing of the Contempt Petition, the Applicant himself has no <br /> role thereafter. When there is an order of punishment as against the alleged <br /> Contemnor, it is the Contemnor who can file an Appeal under Section 19 of the <br /> Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and not the Applicant to the Contempt <br /> Application / Petition. <br /> 11. Accordingly, the dismissal of the Contempt Petition in the instant case <br /> holding it to be not maintainable or that no deliberate contempt has been made <br /> out, is a perfectly valid order under Section 425 of the Act. Further, no Appeal <br /> against the said order would be maintainable and that too, at the behest of <br /> Appellant / the Applicant to the Contempt Petition, as per the provisions of <br /> Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, the Appeal is accordingly <br /> dismissed. <br /> <br /> Comp App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 189 / 2026 Page <b>4</b> of <b>5</b> <br /> <br /><br /> 12. But, having said so, we feel that it is the responsibility of the Tribunal to <br /> ensure that the orders passed by it are complied with, so as to attach a sanctity <br /> and inviolability to its proceedings. The Ld. Tribunal is requested to proceed <br /> accordingly. <br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] </b><br /> <b>Member (Judicial) </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>[Jatindranath Swain] </b><br /> <b>Member (Technical) </b><br /> <br /> <br /> SR/MS/AK <br /> <br /> Comp App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 189 / 2026 Page <b>5</b> of <b>5</b> <br /> </div>