2016 (2) TMI 536 - HC - Indian Laws

Contempt proceedings for not obeying court orders - Remedy for getting the orders or the Court executed - Fight for control over the various entities under the Supermax group which is supposedly the 2nd largest manufacturer of razor blades and allied products in the world. - family fight, between the father and one son on one side and the other son on the other side. - Held that - contempt proceedings and execution proceedings, are two separate remedies available and can be invoked simultaneously and that contempt is a matter between the court and the person against contempt of court whereas the purpose behind execution proceedings is to enjoy the fruits of the decree in his favour. The object of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is to punish a party guilty of the disobedience as contemplated by section 2(b) of the said act. The purpose is not to execute any order, for which purpose the aggrieved party shall have to take recourse to other proceedings known to law. - one cannot use contempt jurisdiction for enforcement of money decrees. The conduct of Respondent no.3 and Respondent no.4 actually makes a mockery of the judicial process. Their conduct extends beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. Their conduct is specifically intended to impede and prejudice the administration of justice. Judiciary is the bed rock and hand maid of orderly life and civilized society. If the people could lose faith in justice imparted by this court or disobey orders of this court, woe to be to orderly life. The fragment of civilized society would get broken up and crumble down. Respondent nos.3 and 4 are held to be guilty of contempt of court for willful disobedience of the directions given by the court It should be remembered that when a party in whose favour an order has been made approaches the court to punish the disobedience of its order, he does not use those proceedings to get the order executed but merely brings to the notice of the court the objectionable conduct of the party disobeying the order and seeks action against that party for committing contempt of court. There is a clear distinction taken - having order executed and bringing to notice of the court willful disobedience on the part of the guilty party and seek to have him punished for contempt of court. Offender to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and three months respectively.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of willful disobedience of a court order.
2. Defense arguments regarding the merger of interim and final orders.
3. Specific charges and responsibilities of individual respondents.
4. Applicability of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
5. Enforcement of money decrees through contempt proceedings.
6. Specific defenses and submissions by respondents.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Allegation of Willful Disobedience:
The petitioner alleged that the respondents willfully disobeyed a court order dated 21.10.2013, which directed the payment of 12% interest on Rs. 67.5 crores within three weeks. The court noted that the respondents did not comply with this order and did not claim an inability to comply, instead arguing they were not bound by the order.

2. Defense Arguments on Merger of Interim and Final Orders:
The respondents argued that the interim order dated 21.10.2013 ceased to exist after the final order dated 12-20/8/2014 was passed. They contended that once a final order is passed, all interim orders merge into the final order and cease to exist. The court rejected this argument, stating that the final order did not explicitly relieve the respondents from complying with the interim order.

3. Specific Charges and Responsibilities of Individual Respondents:
- Respondent No.3: The court found that respondent no.3 controlled SPCPL and was in a position to ensure compliance with the order. The court noted that respondent no.3 had previously admitted to controlling SPCPL in various legal proceedings and affidavits.
- Respondent Nos.1 and 2: The court concluded that respondents nos.1 and 2, as directors of VMPL, could not be held guilty of contempt for failing to ensure SPCPL's payment, as they were not in a position to control SPCPL.
- Respondent No.4: The court found respondent no.4, a director of SPCPL, guilty of contempt for failing to ensure compliance with the court order and making false statements in affidavits.

4. Applicability of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
The court discussed the definitions and provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, particularly sections 2(b), 12(4), and 12(5). It clarified that the contempt proceedings were against the respondents who were present before the court and not against SPCPL, which was not a party to the original proceedings.

5. Enforcement of Money Decrees Through Contempt Proceedings:
The respondents argued that contempt proceedings could not be used to enforce money decrees, citing various judgments. The court held that contempt proceedings and execution proceedings are separate remedies and that the availability of execution proceedings does not bar contempt proceedings. The court emphasized that contempt jurisdiction is to ensure compliance with court orders and maintain the court's dignity.

6. Specific Defenses and Submissions by Respondents:
- Respondent No.3's Control Over SPCPL: The court rejected respondent no.3's claim that he did not control SPCPL, citing multiple instances where he had admitted control.
- Absence of SPCPL in Contempt Proceedings: The court rejected the argument that the absence of SPCPL as a party rendered the contempt petition invalid, stating that the obligation to comply with the order was on the respondents present before the court.
- General Defenses: The court dismissed general defenses, such as the argument that the order had ceased to operate or that the contempt petition was filed too late, emphasizing that the respondents had willfully disobeyed the court order.

Conclusion:
The court found respondent nos.3 and 4 guilty of contempt for willful disobedience of the court order dated 21.10.2013. Respondent nos.1 and 2 were not found guilty. The court sentenced respondent no.3 to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, and respondent no.4 to three months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. The sentences were deferred subject to certain conditions, including payment of dues and filing undertakings.