ORBIT ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED versus DEEPAK KISHAN CHHABRIA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 1022 · Decided: 30-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 1022 : 2023 INSC 967
1022
CASE DETAILS
ORBIT ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
DEEPAK KISHAN CHHABRIA & ORS.
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No 1195 of 2023)
In 
(Civil Appeal No. 6108 of 2023)
OCTOBER 30, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, 
J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Order dtd.13.10.23 was passed by the 
Supreme Court directing NCLAT to pronounce judgment in the pending 
appeal only after the results of the Annual General Meeting of Finolex 
Cables Limited were declared. Despite the fact that NCLAT’s attention was 
drawn to the order of the Supreme Court, it went on to deliver the judgment 
ignoring the direction therein. Said order, if was in willful deﬁ ance of the 
Supreme Court’s order.
Contempt – Interim direction passed by the NCLAT at the stage 
of reserving orders, restoring the status quo ante as available prior to 
EOGM dtd.03.05.19 was vacated by Supreme Court – While vacating 
the order, it was noted that the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of 
Finolex Cables Limited was to take place on 29.09.23 and directed that 
any action taken on the appointment of the Executive Chairperson 
shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal pending before NCLAT – 
Proceedings mentioned in the Contempt Petition, apprising the Supreme 
Court that the declaration of the result of the AGM was deferred till 
the declaration of the judgment by NCLAT – Vide Order dtd.13.10.23, 
Scrutinizer was directed to declare the result of the AGM and NCLAT 
was directed to declare its judgment in the pending appeal after it 
was duly apprised of the fact that the result of the AGM was declared 
– Grievance of the Petitioners that the NCLAT was though apprised 
1023
of the said order, it proceeded to deliver the judgment ignoring the 
direction therein– Chairperson of the NCLAT directed to verify the 
position and submit report– Report submitted – Aﬃ  davits ﬁ led by 
the two members who constituted the Bench of the NCLAT and by 
the Scrutiniser:
Held: From the CCTV footage as well as from the transcript, it is 
evident beyond doubt that though the NCLAT was duly apprised of the 
fact that this Court had in the morning session on 13.10.23 passed an order 
to the eﬀ ect that the judgment shall be pronounced only after the results 
by the Scrutiniser were declared, the Bench of the NCLAT declined to 
pay heed to the order of this Court – The Bench of the NCLAT acted in 
willful deﬁ ance of the order despite the fact that its attention was drawn to 
the order of this Court – Unconditional apology tendered by the Member 
(Technical) accepted – As regards the Member (Judicial), what was stated 
by him was contrary to the record – This was compounded by what had 
been stated in the aﬃ  davit ﬁ led – The conduct of the Member (Judicial) is 
censured – Further, on facts, there is no doubt that the the Scrutiniser acted 
in concert with ‘DKC’, the then acting Chairman-cum-Managing Director 
to delay the declaration of the result of the AGM, in breach of the directions 
issued by this Court – ‘DKC’ to pay Rs.1 crore and the Scrutiniser to pay 
Rs.10 lakhs to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund – Directions issued in 
the earlier order of this Court setting aside the judgment delivered by the 
Bench of the NCLAT on 13.10.23, reiterated – Contempt proceedings 
disposed of. [Paras 19, 21-24, 26, 28, 31 and 33]
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
INHERENT JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1195 
of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 6108 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2023 of the National 
Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi in 
Company Appeal (AT) No.64 of 2020.
Appearances:
Mukul Rohatgi, Ranjeet Kumar, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advs., 
Kunal Mehta, Shikhil Suri,   Abhinav Agrawal, Advs. for the Petitioner.
ORBIT ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. 
DEEPAK KISHAN CHHABRIA & ORS.
1024 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Shyam Divan, Maninder Singh, Darius Khambata, 
Dr. A.M. Singhvi,   Krishnendu Dutta, P.S. Patwalia, Prashanto Sen, Sr. 
Advs., Amit Jajoo, Malak Manish Bhatt, Ms. Vatsala Pant, Mandeep Singh, 
Somasekhar Sundaresan, Ravi Gadagkar, Nitin Saluja, Saahil Mongia, Ms. 
Ishita Soni, Ms. Simran Khurana, Ms. Pranya Madan, Ankur Saigal, E.C. 
Agrawala, Shashwat Singh, Ms. Geetika Sharma, Amit Pawan, Suchit 
Singh Rawat, Ms. Shivangi, Anand Nandan,   Aakarsh, Hassan Zubair 
Waris, Kanu Agrawal, Madhav Sinhal, B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.