LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-38

DEEPAK KHOSLA Vs. NEMO

Decided On September 08, 2014
DEEPAK KHOSLA Appellant
V/S
NEMO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present letter patents appeals arise out of two orders, made by a learned single judge. The first, i.e., LPA 550/2014 impugns an order dated 21 -08 -2014 made in the course of contempt proceedings; the second, i.e., LPA 583/2014 challenges an order of the learned single judge made in the course of a company appeal, pending before him under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereafter called "Companies Act"). This common order deals with the question of maintainability of the present proceedings.

(2.) THE facts briefly in LPA 550/2014, are that a contempt Petition (Contempt Case No 165/2008) was pending, in which the appellant, Shri Deepak Khosla, was apparently a party. The order dated 21.08.2014 traced the sequence of events in respect of certain proceedings, including the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 24 -04 -2012 in LPA 16/2014. The Division Bench had directed that the order of the learned single judge, dated 04 -01 -2012 in these proceedings be treated as a show cause notice, to be answered by Shri Khosla. His grievance in the appeal, LPA 550/2014 is in respect of directions made by the learned single judge, specially pertaining to his enrolment as an Advocate by the Karnataka Bar Council. He argues that such directions were unwarranted, made beyond jurisdiction of the learned single judge who was bound by the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act to strictly proceed to decide whether the conduct complained of amounted to contempt. It was submitted that though ostensibly made in the course of contempt proceedings, the single judge's directions travelled beyond what was permissible. It is argued, therefore, that the present appeal is maintainable.

(3.) IT is argued that all directions which had no bearing on the alleged contempt or related matters were extraneous and consequently an appeal is maintainable in respect of such order or directions. The decision in Midnapore Peoples' Co -Op. Bank (supra) was relied on for the proposition.