9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Contempt of Court by Respondent No. 1 for withdrawing money from a Swiss bank account in violation of court orders. 2. Examination of whether the Respondent had actually withdrawn money from the account after the court's prohibitory orders. Summary: Issue 1: Contempt of Court by Respondent No. 1 The petition was filed u/s Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, and Rule 3(C) of the Rules to regulate proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. The petitioner sought to punish Respondent No. 1 for withdrawing a large sum of money from his Swiss bank account in violation of the court's orders dated September 4, 2006, and December 14, 2006. The court had previously held Respondent No. 1 guilty of contempt on April 1, 2010, noting that he had not denied the allegations of withdrawing money in violation of the court's order. Issue 2: Examination of Withdrawal of Money The court examined whether the Respondent had indeed withdrawn money from his Swiss bank account after the court's prohibitory orders. The relevant facts include: - The Petitioner, National Fertilizers Ltd., had entered into a contract with Karsan, a Turkish company, for the supply of urea, and had paid the full contract value in advance. - Despite the payment, the Petitioner did not receive any urea, leading to a criminal case and the arrest of Alankus and Karanci. - The court had issued orders on September 4, 2006, and December 14, 2006, restraining Respondent No. 1 from withdrawing money from his Swiss bank account. - The Respondent claimed that the account had been closed on July 25, 2006, and provided a bank statement showing that the entire amount had been withdrawn by June 21, 2006. The court found that the attachment against the Respondent's account was lifted on June 1, 2006, and the next attachment order was obtained only on December 15, 2006. Therefore, there was a period of over six months when there was no attachment order, and the amount was withdrawn during this period. Consequently, on September 4, 2006, when the court passed the order prohibiting withdrawals, there was no money in the account. Conclusion: The court concluded that the Respondent could not be held guilty of contempt as there was no money in the account when the prohibitory order was passed. The order dated April 1, 2010, holding the Respondent guilty of contempt was based on an erroneous premise and was recalled. The contempt petition was dismissed.
|
