CONTEMPT JURISDICTION OF NCLT AND NCLAT

NCLT has NCLAT has power to punish for its contempt under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013. Relevant para is as under –

425. Power to punish for contempt.— The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of themselves as the High Court has and may exercise, for this purpose, the powers under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971(70 of 1971), which shall have the effect subject to modifications that—

 (a) the reference therein to a High Court shall be construed as including a reference to the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal; and

(b) the reference to Advocate-General in section 15 of the said Act shall be construed as a reference to such Law Officers as the Central Government may, specify in this behalf.

Contempt of Court Act, 1971 confers comprehensive powers on High Court  to punish for civil as well as criminal contempt.

The issue arose before NCLAT in Shailendra Singh Vs Nisha Malpani  Company Appeal (AT) (INS) No. 945/2020 whether NCLT has jurisdiction to punish for its contempt in respect of IBC proceedings. The NCLAT held that NCLT has contempt powers in respect of IBC proceedings also. Relevant para is as under –

40. Under the I&B Code, 2016 the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) adjudicates all proceedings before it and renders its decision. Just because the I&B Code does not specifically mention about the contempt provisions, it cannot be said that the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ (National Company Law Tribunal) has no powers of contempt. If one is to give such a restricted interpretation that the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) has no jurisdiction of contempt, then it orders cannot be implemented and in fact, the I&B Code will remain in ‘Black Letters’ without a teeth to bite, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal.

The NCLAT Chennai Bench held in Pankaj Dhanuka Vs Lanco Kandapalli Power Ltd  IA No.1194/2024 in A No.1194/2024  held that no contempt petition is maintainable against inanimate or juristic person like company as such persons cannot be punished.

The opposite party which was described in the contempt petition the alleged contemnor is a juristic person which under the company law has got a right to sue and to be sued, but under the law for the purposes of the contempt proceedings to determine an Act of Contempt, it is always an act of an individual attached to the organisation, which could be brought within the purview of Section 425 to be read with Section 12/14 of the Contempt of Courts Act because organisation/juristic person cannot be punished under Section 12/14 of Contempt of Courts Act, and in the absence of the Respondent being represented by an individual who was responsible to comply the order. No contempt proceedings would be tenable, as against the inanimate or juristic person. Hence, the contempt petition from this perspective itself was also not tenable and deserves rejection.

The NCLAT Chennai Bench has held in Mr. H. Kishen & Ors Vs. Smt. G. Kalpana & Ors  (Company Appeal ) (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 295/2025  that appeal against order of contempt is maintainable but no appeal is maintainable against dismissal of contempt petition.

___________________________________