Facts
The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the court’s previous order dated 24th November 2025 in W.P.(C) 14624/2025.
Source reference: p. 1, para 1That order directed the Respondents (Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Registrar of Companies) to consider the petitioner’s complaint/representation.
Source reference: p. 10, para 4On 20th July 2026, the Respondents filed a Compliance Affidavit detailing the actions taken, including a report sent by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) to the Ministry.
Source reference: p. 2, para 2; p. 10, para 5Issues
1. Whether the Respondents willfully disobeyed the directions passed in W.P.(C) 14624/2025 regarding the consideration of the petitioner's representation.
Source reference: p. 1, para 1; p. 10, para 4Law Applied
Section 210 of the Companies Act, 2013, which provides for investigation into the affairs of a company in the public interest or on the basis of a report from the Registrar.
Source reference: p. 10, para 5Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, regarding investigations by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).
Source reference: p. 10, para 5The overarching principle applied is that of substantial compliance in contempt jurisdiction, where the court determines if the "spirit and letter" of a previous order have been met by the executive.
Source reference: p. 10, para 4, 7Reasoning
The court analyzed the Compliance Affidavit and the order dated 22nd January 2026 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and found that the Central Government had already acted upon the Court's previous mandate by issuing a recommendation for investigation under Section 210 of the Companies Act.
Source reference: p. 2, para 2; p. 8, para 3; p. 10, para 5The ROC had submitted the necessary reports under Sections 210 and 212.
Source reference: p. 10, para 5The court accepted the submission of the Union’s counsel that due to the scale of the investigation, a period of approximately one year is standard for conclusion.
Source reference: p. 10, para 6The court reasoned that since the representation was considered and formal investigative proceedings were initiated, the directions stood "duly complied with".
Source reference: p. 10, para 4Holding
The court held that no further orders were required as the previous directions had been satisfied.
The petition was disposed of with the holding that the initiation of investigations under Sections 210 and 212 of the Companies Act constitutes sufficient compliance with a direction to consider a complaint.
Source reference: p. 10, para 4-5The petitioner was granted liberty to revive proceedings in the event of future non-action by the respondents.
Source reference: p. 10, para 8-9Original Court PDF
Breejesh NirulavsUnion Of India & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in