In Brief
In this contempt petition arising from a family dispute over corporate management, Rama Narang challenged alleged violations of a Consent Order by the respondents. Although the Court acknowledged that some non-compliance occurred, it found that the respondents had lawfully invoked the Company Law Board's jurisdiction under statutory provisions, taking alternative legal remedies rather than deliberately defying the Court. The Court held that contempt requires wilful and intentional disobedience; mere non-compliance driven by compelling circumstances, where statutory remedies exist, does not warrant contempt punishment. The petition was dismissed, leaving the parties to pursue available statutory remedies.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.