CONT.CAS(C)/1160/2026 of KHANNA PAPER MILLS LTD Vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS & ANR. on 10 July 2026

O R D E R

%

10.07.2026

1. The present petition has been filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 18th February, 2026, passed by this Court in CONT.CAS(C) 253/2026.

2. Perusal of the various orders on record show that earlier, in writ petition being W.P.(C) 19067/2025, titled as Khanna Paper Mills Ltd. Versus Union of India & Anr., this Court vide order dated 17th December, 2025, issued the following directions: “1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following prayers:

“a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing Respondent Nos. 2 namely, the Institute of Company Secretaries of India to forthwith dispose of the complaint bearing no. DC/1083/2024 and DC/1089/2024 dated 09.08.2024 in terms of Rule 18 of the Company Secretaries Rules, 2007 read with Section 21B the Companies Secretaries Act, 1980 within a strictly time-bound period as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

b. Pass such further order(s) in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2, on advance notice submits that the present petition will be treated as representation and will be decided within two weeks from today under intimation to the petitioner.

4. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 to treat the present petition as representation and decide the same within two weeks from today under intimation to the petitioner.

5. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.”

3. Perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein was disposed of, with direction to respondent no.2 to treat the said petition as a representation, and decide the same.

4. Subsequently, upon contempt of the aforesaid order, the petitioner herein filed CONT. CAS(C) 253/2026, whereby, order dated 18th February, 2026 came to be passed, which reads as under: “1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

a. “Initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondents under Sections 2(b) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 17.12.2025passed in W.P.(C) 19067/2025; b. Direct the Respondent to forthwith comply with the order dated 17.12.2025 by deciding the Petitioner’s representation and communicating the decision without any further delay;…”

2. In the order dated 17.12.2025, the Court directed the respondent No. 2 to treat the petition as a representation and decide the same within 2 weeks under intimation to the petitioner.

3. The said order reads as under:

“1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following prayers:

“a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing Respondent Nos. 2 namely, the Institute of Company Secretaries of India to forthwith dispose of the complaint bearing no. DC/1083/2024 and DC/1089/2024 dated 09.08.2024 in terms of Rule 18 of the Company Secretaries Rules, 2007 read with Section 21B the Companies Secretaries Act, 1980 within a strictly time- bound period as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

b. Pass such further order(s) in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2, on advance notice submits that the present petition will be treated as representation and will be decided within two weeks from today under intimation to the petitioner.

4. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 to treat the present petition as representation and decide the same within two weeks from today under intimation to the petitioner.

5. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.”

4. Despite the clear directions of the Court, the disciplinary committee has not been constituted and the petitioner has not been given any hearing.

5. For the said reasons, it is directed that the respondent No. 2 shall constitute a disciplinary committee, hear the petitioner and pass a speaking order expeditiously and not later than 3 months from today.

6. With these directions, the petition is disposed of.

7. In case the order is not complied with, the petitioner will be entitled to revive the petition.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

5. Perusal of the aforesaid order shows that there were directions to the respondents herein to constitute a disciplinary committee, hear the petitioner, and pass a speaking order.

6. Subsequently, order dated 25th May, 2026 came to be passed in CONT.CAS(C) 253/2026, upon an application on behalf of the respondent no. 2, herein seeking extension of time. Thus, the order dated 25th May, 2026 reads as under: “CM APPL. 36027/2026

1. This is an application filed under Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 on behalf of the respondent No.2 seeking extension of 6 months’ time to conclude the disciplinary proceedings arising out of the complaints filed by the petitioner against member of the respondent No. 2 institute.

2. This Court vide Order dated 17.12.2025 passed in W.P.(C) 1906/2025, directed the respondent No. 2 to treat the petition as a representation and decide the same within 2 weeks.

3. Thereafter, on 18.02.2026, this court further granted 3 months to the respondent No. 2 to comply with the directions in the order dated 17.12.2025.

4. I am of the view that timelines fixed by the Courts are bound to be followed scrupulously and cannot be extended indefinitely.

5. Hence, the request of the respondent No. 2 to extend the timeline by 6 months is not acceptable and consequently, the present application is dismissed.”

7. By way of the aforesaid order, the timeline for passing the order was not extended and respondent no. 2 herein was directed to comply with the timelines, as fixed by the Court.

8. This Court is informed that now the final order dated 29th June, 2026, has been issued by the disciplinary committee, i.e., the Institute of Company Secretaries of India.

9. This Court notes the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order dated 29th June, 2026 passed by respondent no. 2 is not in terms of the directions passed by the Court, and in particular, she relies upon the following paragraphs of the said order: “xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx”

10. Considering the submissions made before this Court, it is to be noted that the directions passed by this Court, for treating the petition as representation, and pass a speaking order therein, already stands complied with.

11. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said final order passed by respondent no. 2, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said order, in accordance with law.

12. Accordingly, noting the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J JULY 10, 2026 ak