9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 958 - SC - Indian LawsContempt Petition - the alleged contemnors have violated the order of this court dated 07.05.2012 - proceedings u/s 13 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 - recovery of amount on sale of properties - HELD THAT - We cannot appreciate the conduct of Alchemist and its officers. Both the High Court and this Court had clearly directed that out of the amount recovered by sale of the properties of the borrowed Company by Alchemist, ₹ 4.5 crores were to be paid to KMBL, and ₹ 9 crores were to be retained by Alchemist. Any amount in excess was to be deposited in Court. Though liberty was given to Alchemist on 02.07.2014 to approach the High Court, such application was filed only in February, 2017. There is no explanation as to why such application was not filed for three years. It is obvious that this application was filed only after the sale certificate was issued and KMBL sent various communication to Alchemist to pay a sum of ₹ 4.5 crores to it. Having held so, we are of the view that it may not be necessary to take action against the alleged contemnors under the Contempt of Courts Act, in view of the fact that pursuant to the order of this Court they have now deposited ₹ 4.5 crores. The amount of ₹ 4.5 crores deposited by Alchemist shall be paid to KMBL along with interest, if any, accrued thereupon - contempt petition closed.
Issues:
Contempt of court for violation of court order dated 07.05.2012 by alleged contemnors. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed Contempt Petitions alleging violation of the court order dated 07.05.2012 by the alleged contemnors. 2. The background involved loans taken by a Company from consortium Banks, with debts assigned to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (KMBL) and Alchemist Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd. (Alchemist). 3. Legal proceedings were initiated by KMBL for recovery of dues before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi, and Alchemist under the SARFAESI Act, leading to a High Court order directing payments by the borrower Company. 4. Alchemist challenged the High Court order in Supreme Court, which partly modified the directions in its order dated 07.05.2012. 5. Disputes arose regarding the sale of property by Alchemist, with KMBL alleging non-payment of the directed amount, leading to the Contempt Petitions. 6. Alchemist's attempts to sell the property and subsequent actions were contested by KMBL, resulting in the matter being brought before the Supreme Court. 7. The Court directed Alchemist to deposit a sum of &8377; 4.5 crores and consider the settlement agreement's scope and purport. 8. KMBL argued that Alchemist's failure to pay the directed amount constituted contempt, while Alchemist claimed entitlement to a higher share of recoveries. 9. The Court found Alchemist's conduct questionable, emphasizing the specific payment directions in previous orders. 10. Despite Alchemist's contentions, the Court held them responsible for non-compliance with the payment directive. 11. The Court noted the delay in Alchemist's application to the High Court and emphasized adherence to the previous payment order. 12. Considering the deposited amount, the Court refrained from contempt action but directed payment of the deposited sum to KMBL. 13. The Court declined to assess the amount due to KMBL, suggesting the High Court address all related issues arising from the interim orders. 14. The Court ordered the payment of the deposited amount to KMBL, subject to High Court's determination, closing the Contempt Petitions accordingly.
|
