JOHNY KURUVILLA Vs. LIZAMMA AUGUSTINE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as Additional Solicitor General of India.

(2.) THE present contempt proceedings came to be initiated on the basis of reference order dated 9.7.2012. The genesis for this present situation is pendency of Exhibit P8, a Company Petition before the Company Law Board. W.P(C).No. 7449 of 2011 came to be filed by the complainant against Company Law Board and others, including private respondents, seeking a direction to Company Law Board to dispose of Exhibit P8 Company Petition pending before the Board. As a matter of fact, the said Writ Petition was not at all resisted by the present contemnor, i.e., the fourth respondent before learned Single Judge. This led to allowing the Writ Petition, wherein paragraph 4 is very relevant, which reads as under:

(3.) THE entire affidavit by paragraphs indicates, from time to time what were the reasons for the said delay. It is unfortunate that she was the only Member for four States and she had to deal with Company Petitions pertaining to four States including State of Kerala. It is also explained that several directions from four High Courts and Supreme Court were issued from time to time in different matters and this was the pressure of work explained by the respondent. In the meanwhile, her brother and brother's wife died within a span of 2-3 months apart from her hospitalisation with dengue infection in 2011. Then coming to the Company Petition, she has also explained that as on 19.11.2011, the status of the proceedings was at the stage of service of notice to the respondents. Therefore, process had to be completed and there were ex-parte orders against some of the respondents. They filed applications for setting aside the ex-parte orders and those petitions came to be allowed only in the year 2012. On 21.3.2012 the matter was ripe for hearing and disposal. Paragraph 5 of the reply affidavit clearly indicates why the matter could not be heard after 21.3.2012.