Tribunal closes contempt proceedings while related writ challenge remains pending, preserving liberty to revive.

The applicant in CP No. 456/2025, along with applicants in connected contempt petitions, had instituted proceedings arising out of orders passed by the Tribunal in their respective original applications.

The connected contempt petitions principally arose from OA No. 2953/2022 and several related OAs.

At the hearing, counsel for the parties submitted that the matters in CP No. 456/2025 and batch were identical to CP Nos. 458/2025, 459/2025, 460/2025, 461/2025, 462/2025, 466/2025, 468/2025, 469/2025, 470/2025, 472/2025, 473/2025, 474/2025 and 476/2025.

The Tribunal was also informed that the Tribunal’s underlying order had been challenged before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 15273/2025, in which judgment had been reserved on 8 July 2026.

Whether the identified connected contempt petitions should be tagged with CP No. 456/2025 as matters involving identical issues?

Whether the contempt petitions should be closed while permitting either party to seek revival if a grievance subsequently arises, particularly in view of the pending proceedings before the High Court?

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that matters involving identical facts and issues may be tagged and heard as a batch to ensure consistency and judicial efficiency.

It further applied the principle governing closure of contempt proceedings where the underlying order is under challenge before a superior court, while preserving liberty to revive the proceedings if a legally cognisable grievance subsequently arises.

The Tribunal also discharged the notices upon closure of the contempt petitions.

No substantive statutory provision or precedent was cited or applied in the order.

The Tribunal accepted the parties’ submission that the identified petitions were factually and legally identical to CP No. 456/2025 and therefore directed that they be tagged with the lead matter.

Since the underlying Tribunal order was under challenge before the Delhi High Court and the writ petition had been reserved for orders, the Tribunal considered it appropriate not to continue the contempt proceedings at that stage.

It consequently closed the contempt petitions, discharged the notices, and preserved the parties’ right to seek revival if a grievance arose in accordance with law.

The Tribunal clarified that CP No. 456/2025 was the lead matter and that its revival would operate as revival of the entire batch.

It thereafter closed the contempt petitions and discharged the notices, without adjudicating the underlying merits.

Either party was granted liberty to seek revival in accordance with law if any grievance arose.

The Tribunal further held that revival of the lead petition, CP No. 456/2025, would amount to revival of the entire batch.