Summary of Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises in Contempt Case (AT) No. 11 of 2018 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 198 of 2018 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The parties are Prasad Carrying Corporation & Ors. (Appellant) v. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal, Resolution Professional (Respondent). On 22.07.2022 (virtual mode), counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Sanjay Bhat, informed the Bench that he was unable to obtain instructions from his clients and proposed to withdraw his vakalatnama in respect of the present application. The Bench recorded that, given this position, it appeared the Applicant was not interested in pursuing the contempt application and proceeded to dismiss the application.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• Learned counsel for the Applicant (Mr. Sanjay Bhat) stated he was unable to obtain any instructions from his clients.
• On that basis, counsel proposed to withdraw his vakalatnama from the present application.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Bench noted the Applicant's counsel's statement that he could not obtain instructions and proposed withdrawal of the vakalatnama. Observing that this inability to obtain instructions indicated the Applicant's apparent lack of interest in prosecuting the contempt application, the Bench concluded that continuation of the application was not warranted. On that basis the Bench dismissed the application. The opinion records these factual procedural observations as the sole basis for the order and does not elaborate further legal analysis.

Holding and Implications

APPLICATION DISMISSED

Direct effect: the contempt application in Contempt Case (AT) No. 11 of 2018 stands dismissed. The order reflects that the Applicant is not pursuing the matter. The opinion does not articulate broader legal implications or establish new precedent.

Bench: Justice Rakesh Kumar (Member Judicial) and Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra (Member Technical). Counsel recorded: For Appellant — Mr. Sanjay Bhat and Ms. Ruchi Goyal; For Respondent — Ms. Charu Bansal, Mr. Prabh Simran Kaur and Mr. Vaijayant Paliwal.