Court Exercising Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Modify Original Orders or Decide Substantive Merits of the Case

The petitioner filed an interlocutory application (I.A. 1284/KB/2024) before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) challenging an e-auction notice and alleging interference with their possession of land

On July 3, 2024, the NCLT passed an interim order permitting the auction to proceed but restraining the finalization of the sale

Subsequently, the liquidator issued letters of intent to successful bidders following fresh auction notices

The petitioner filed contempt applications alleging violation of the July 2024 interim order

On March 10, 2026, the NCLT dismissed the contempt applications and, in paragraph 12, directed that there should be no impediment for the liquidator to finalize the sale and execute the sale certificate

The petitioner challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing the NCLT exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively vacating a substantive interim order while sitting in contempt jurisdiction

1. Whether the High Court can entertain a revisional application under Article 227 despite the availability of a statutory appellate remedy before the NCLAT

2. Whether the NCLT exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing substantive directions touching upon the merits of the case while exercising contempt jurisdiction

An alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to Article 227 if a tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in a perverse manner, as established in Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

A court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot function as an original or appellate court, must stay within the "four corners" of the order alleged to have been flouted, and cannot grant substantive relief or modify original orders (Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly and Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran)

A court cannot modify a mandatory order passed in writ/substantive jurisdiction while sitting in contempt jurisdiction (Brahma Deo Mishra v. State of West Bengal)

The Court observed that the NCLT’s order was passed specifically within the framework of three contempt applications, not the primary interlocutory application

By directing the liquidator to "conclude the sale process" in paragraph 12 of the impugned order, the NCLT effectively neutralized its own prior interim restraint dated July 3, 2024

Contempt jurisdiction is limited to Determining whether a willful disobedience occurred; it does not permit a tribunal to adjudicate upon the merits of the underlying dispute or issue supplemental directions that override previous substantive orders

The NCLT’s direction in paragraph 12 was a jurisdictional error because it "trenched upon" corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal while purportedly deciding a contempt plea

The Court declined to order status quo ante since a third-party auction purchaser had already taken possession, invoking the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit

The issuance of the sale certificate and subsequent actions shall be subject to the final outcome of the pending interlocutory application (I.A. 1284/KB/2024), which the NCLT was directed to decide independently

The revisional application was disposed of without costs