Supreme Court Reversal Of Order Or Lack Of Wilful Disobedience Bar Contempt: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on 6 April, held that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to continue proceedings where the underlying judgment has already been set aside by the Supreme Court or where allegations of wilful disobedience are not supported by the record.

A Bench of Justice Easwaran S dismissed a contempt petition filed by Voizzit Technology Private Limited and its connected entity, and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on them, payable to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee. He observed:

“On an anxious consideration of the submissions, this Court is unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, especially since by the time the proceedings dated 27.05.2025 was issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, US, the judgment of this Court was set aside by the Supreme Court.”

Voizzit Technology had initiated contempt proceedings in relation to alleged violations concerning the assets of Epic Creations Inc and Tangible Play Inc. The dispute also had parallel proceedings before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, where the entities were treated as “US Debtor Companies”, with the broader corporate linkage tracing to Think and Learn Pvt Ltd, the parent entity of BYJU'S.

The petition filed by Voizzit Technology alleged wilful disobedience of the High Court's judgment dated 21 May 2025, which directed the Commercial Court, Ernakulam, to dispose of an interlocutory application within two weeks and had also restrained alienation of properties and continuation of the sale process.

Subsequently, on 27 May 2025, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated 21 May 2025 on the ground that it had been passed ex parte, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Meanwhile, the Delaware Court subjected the assets of Epic Creations Inc and Tangible Play Inc to an involuntary sale pursuant to its proceedings.

Voizzit Technology alleged that the sale violated the High Court's directions. It contended that the alleged disobedience occurred when the High Court's order was still in force, and therefore maintained that the contempt petition remained maintainable.

The High Court, however, noted that the sale had taken place on 20 May 2025 and that it had subsequently dismissed the interlocutory application as infructuous. It further observed that the petitioners' claim that the sale occurred on 27 May 2025 appeared to have been made only to keep the contempt proceedings alive.

The Bench also held that its directions could not extend to judicial proceedings before a competent foreign court, particularly where the respondents had no notice of the High Court's order. It observed:

“Moreover, even if this Court had interdicted the respondents from proceeding with the sale, obviously the said interdiction will not be applicable to a judicial proceedings taken by a court of competent jurisdiction outside the territory of India/Kerala especially when the respondents have no notice regarding the judgment.”

Accordingly, the Court held that the proceedings amounted to a waste of judicial time, and dismissed the contempt petition with costs of Rs. 50,000.

For Petitioners: Advocate V.R Manoranjan (Muvattupuzha)

For Respondents: Senior Advocates Joseph Kodianthara, George Poonthottam, Advocates K.P Prasanth, Anitha Mathai Muthirenthy, Mathew Nevin Thomas, Mathews P George, Aamir Sohrab MM, Sreelal N Warrier, Himanshu Bagai, Kushal Gupta, Deepshikha Sarkar, Akanksha Singh, Bhanu, P.S Biju, Kurian Antony Mathew, Shinto Mathew Abraham, Aparnna S, Arun Thomas, Arun Joseph Mathew, Noel Ninan Ninan, Adeen Nazar, Veena Raveendran, Rohan Mathew, Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Karthika Maria, B. Ananthu, Cyriac Tom and Harikumar G (Gopinathan Nair)