RAJ KACHROO Vs. SUMER MISRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 03.09.2007 whereby the application filed by Dr. Raj Kachroo (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') seeking initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against Sumer Misri and others (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondents') for non-compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 21.12.2006 had been dismissed. The impugned order had noted that in terms of its earlier directions dated 21.12.2006 if the petitioners/appellants are interested in taking over the control of the company, they should reimburse the respondents of all amounts which they had brought in for discharging the liabilities of the company after the order dated 21.12.2006 (which sum is admittedly a sum of Rs. 16 lacs.). Record shows that the petitioner had filed the present petition under Sections 397 & 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Company Law Board (CLB) alleging oppression and mismanagement. Various allegations were leveled against the respondent and its directors; these allegations may not be relevant to answer the issue before this Court.

(2.) The order dated 21.12.2006 had noted that the company was not functioning for two years and from the collections made, the secured creditors had been paid to the extent of Rs. 67 lacs on 01.04.2005; as the company was not functioning, its machinery had been leased out at a monthly rent of Rs. 20, 000/- per month. The allegation of siphoning the funds based on the audit report had not been established by the petitioner. This order had further noted that the machinery of the company had been removed and placed in another premises. The concluding para of the said judgment which is relevant to answer this appeal is herein reproduced below and reads as follows:-

(3.) From the aforenoted order, it is clear that the respondents had offered to handover the company along with its machinery to the petitioner without any consideration; the petitioner was given the choice of either taking over the ownership and control of the company or in the alternate to prefer a petition for winding up of the company.