Authority: National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench (Court-II)
Order Date: 07/07/2026
Case Overview
This Contempt Petition (No. 5 of 2023) was filed within Interlocutory Application No. 41 of 2022, which itself was part of the main Company Petition No. 114 of 2018. The applicants, led by Navinchandra Dayalal Vadalia, his wife Nishaben, and his HUF, filed against multiple respondents, primarily Prabhat Solvent Extraction Industries Pvt. Ltd. and various members of the Vadalia family, including Gopal Dhirajlal Vadalia, Jyotsanaben Dhirajlal Vadalia, Jyotiben Dayalal Vadalia, Bharatkumar Mohanlal Vadalia, Maheshkumar Dayalal Vadalia (and his HUF), and Heenaben Maheshkumar Vadalia. Professional firms J. A. Sheth and Associates (proprietor Jingal A. Sheth) and CS Ankit Thakrar of AN Thakrar and Co were also named as respondents.
The applicants alleged that affidavits submitted by Respondents No. 3, 4, and adopted by others were intentionally contradictory, misleading, or false. They claimed the aim was to deceive the Tribunal, divert attention from unlawful activities, misrepresent legitimate presence and ownership of Madhapar agricultural lands, evade financial obligations, achieve unjust enrichment, and deliberately cause delays in proceedings, allowing continued unauthorized usage of the lands.
The prayers sought included an immediate interim relief to maintain the sanctity of the judicial process, a comprehensive investigation into the affidavits, an injunction restraining unauthorized non-agricultural use of the Madhapar lands, initiation of consolidated contempt and perjury proceedings, and an award of costs.
Final Outcome
The two-member bench comprising Member (Judicial) Mrs. Chitra Hankare and Member (Technical) Dr. Velamur G. Venkata Chalapathy dismissed the contempt petition. The order stated, "In view of the order passed in CP No. 114 of 2018, this contempt petition becomes infructuous." This indicates that the main company petition, which was the foundation for this contempt proceeding, had already been disposed of or resolved in a manner that rendered the contempt allegations moot. The Tribunal did not rule on the merits of the allegations regarding misleading affidavits or unauthorized land use. The practical consequence is the termination of this specific contempt proceeding without any findings of contempt or relief granted to the applicants.
Topics: NCLT Proceeding, Contempt Petition, Family Dispute