2007 (8) TMI 441 - SC - Companies Law

Commission of contempt - Held that - During the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by the non-official respondents that they are willing to dispose of the properties to meet the demands of the creditors. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that after having violated various orders passed, one of the non-official respondents has now come to dispose off the properties to meet the demands of creditors and to wipe out the liabilities. Ultimately, the people who are the creditors have to get back their money. Without entering into the matters relating to the commission of contempt, it would be appropriate for the concerned court to work out the modalities as to how the properties can be sold to get the highest price so that the dues of the creditors and the liabilities can be discharged.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Single Judge of Delhi High Court dismissing application filed by appellants.
Challenge to order passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissing Criminal Revision Petition.
Applicability of locus standi for filing a revision petition.
Disposal of properties to meet creditors' demands and liabilities.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the order passed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the application filed by the appellants. The petition before the High Court was against the order of an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellants. The grievances stemmed from the activities of M/s. Habib Investment Ltd., which advertised lucrative schemes leading to complaints of cheating when certificates were not honored. Initially, an application was filed for the appointment of a receiver and attachment of properties, which were later disposed of contrary to the attachment order.

The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge rejected the appellants' application citing lack of locus standi for filing a revision petition. The High Court summarily dismissed the petition without delving into the merits. During the appeal hearing, the non-official respondents expressed willingness to dispose of the properties to meet creditors' demands. The appellants highlighted the violation of previous orders by one respondent who now sought to clear liabilities. The Supreme Court directed the concerned court to oversee the sale of properties to obtain the highest price for settling creditors' dues and liabilities, emphasizing the importance of ensuring payments to various parties.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by instructing the concerned court to determine the details and modalities of property disposal after hearing both parties. The aim was to ensure the payment of amounts due to creditors and discharge of liabilities effectively. The judgment focused on resolving the issue of property disposal to meet financial obligations and safeguard the interests of creditors and parties involved.