9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (12) TMI 665 - SC - Indian LawsInitiation of contempt proceedings - Breach of undertaking given to the Court - Jurisdictional challenge to the Supreme Court's decree - Limitation period for filing contempt proceedings - Violation of the undertaking given in Clause 7 of the consent decree - contemptuous statement before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - HELD THAT - It is categorically stated in the present petition that in January, 2001 the petitioners learnt about the consent decree passed in the case of Oman International Bank during the course of execution proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, when steps were taken to attach the aforesaid three properties. The respondents have neither controverted the said fact nor have placed any material to show that the petitioners got knowledge of the consent terms filed by the respondents in the Bombay High Court at any time prior thereto. The petitioners filed the present application within five months of getting knowledge of the undertaking given by the respondents in the aforesaid case, In such a situation, the proceedings initiated against the respondents cannot be held to be barred by limitation in view of the law laid down by this Court in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian 2001 (8) TMI 1239 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it has been held that the period of limitation in a case like the present one has to be counted from the date of knowledge. In the present proceedings we are basically concerned with the violation or breach of the undertaking given by the respondents. Shri C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel, has submitted that the Respondent No. 2 was not personally present and the undertaking was given by him through a power of attorney. In our opinion, the mere fact that the respondent No. 2 was personally not present and the undertaking and the consent terms were given through a power of attorney will make no difference as he also got benefit under the consent decree passed by this Court. We are conscious of the fact that the power to punish for contempt must always be exercised consciously, wisely and with circumspection. At the same time, the Court should act with seriousness and severity where justice is jeopardized by a grossly contemptuous act of a party. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society. The present petition was heard on 27.8.2003 when we enquired whether the respondents would be willing to deposit the amount. Learned counsel for the respondents sought time and the case was adjourned to 23.9.2003 and then to 14.10.2003 and finally to 28.10.2003. However, even on the said date, learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the problems of the respondents in depositing the amount and so the matter was heard on merits. The position remains that though under the consent decree passed by this Court on 28.7.1999, the respondents had to deposit the first installment on or before 1.11.1999 and the last installment by 1.8.2001, but they have not deposited or paid even a single penny. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no occasion for showing any leniency in the matter of punishment. We accordingly hold that the respondents have committed contempt of Court for which they are sentenced to undergo four months imprisonment It is, however, directed that after they have undergone 15 days imprisonment, they shall be released on short term bail for a period of three months on their furnishing bail bonds, etc., to the satisfaction of the Registrar, Bombay High Court. If during this period of three months, they deposit the entire amount in terms of the consent decree dated 28.7.1999, the sentence of four months imprisonment imposed upon them shall be reduced to the period already undergone, failing which they will undergo the balance period of imprisonment.
Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of contempt proceedings. 2. Breach of undertaking given to the Court. 3. Jurisdictional challenge to the Supreme Court's decree. 4. Limitation period for filing contempt proceedings. 5. Sentence for contempt of court. Summary: 1. Initiation of Contempt Proceedings: The Bank of Baroda filed a contempt petition against the respondents for non-compliance with a consent decree dated 28.7.1999, which required them to pay specified amounts in installments. The respondents defaulted on the payment, leading the petitioner to seek execution of the decree through the Court Receiver and the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bombay. 2. Breach of Undertaking Given to the Court: The respondents had undertaken not to sell, mortgage, alienate, encumber, or charge certain properties until the decree was satisfied. However, they entered into a settlement in another suit (Summary Suit No. 4571 of 1996) with Oman International Bank, SAOD, offering the same properties under attachment, thereby violating the undertaking given to the Supreme Court. 3. Jurisdictional Challenge to the Supreme Court's Decree: The respondents argued before the Debts Recovery Tribunal that the Supreme Court's decree dated 28.7.1999 was without jurisdiction and a nullity. The Court held that such a legal plea does not normally amount to contempt, but in this case, it was seen as a deliberate attempt to create hurdles in the execution of the decree, constituting a willful breach of the undertaking. 4. Limitation Period for Filing Contempt Proceedings: The respondents contended that the contempt petition was barred by limitation u/s 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Court noted that the petitioners learned about the consent decree in January 2001 during execution proceedings and filed the contempt petition within five months, thus it was not barred by limitation as per the law laid down in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian. 5. Sentence for Contempt of Court: The Court emphasized the importance of respecting and protecting the dignity and authority of the Courts. Given the respondents' grossly contemptuous act and failure to deposit any amount as per the consent decree, the Court sentenced them to four months imprisonment. However, if they deposit the entire amount within three months after serving 15 days of imprisonment, the sentence would be reduced to the period already undergone. Conclusion: The respondents were found guilty of contempt of court for willfully breaching the undertaking given in the consent terms and were sentenced to four months imprisonment, with a provision for reduction upon compliance with the decree.
|
