9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 516 - SC - Indian LawsContempt of Court - Punishment and purging of contempt - guilty of disobeying the Orders passed by this Court in not disclosing full particulars of the assets - whether the actions on the part of Respondent No.3 in disbursing the amount of US 40 million was against the text and tenor of the orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka? - whether this Court can take cognizance of such violation or should it leave it to be decided by the High Court of Karnataka itself in a properly instituted legal proceeding? HELD THAT - The actions on part of the Contemnor having been found to be contumacious and established in the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2017, we are presently concerned with the issues as to what orders be passed regarding punishment and purging of contempt. The approach in such cases was succinctly stated by this Court in Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali Anr. 2001 (10) TMI 1049 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that merely undergoing the penalty imposed on a contemnor is sufficient to complete the process of purging himself of the contempt, particularly in a case where the contemnor is convicted of criminal contempt. The danger in giving accord to the said view of the learned Single Judge in the aforecited decision is that if a contemnor is sentenced to a fine he can immediately pay it and continue to commit contempt in the same court, and then again pay the fine and persist with his contemptuous conduct. There must be something more to be done to get oneself purged of the contempt when it is a case of criminal contempt. It is, thus, well settled that apart from punishing the contemnor for his contumacious conduct, the majesty of law may demand that appropriate directions be issued by the court so that any advantage secured as a result of such contumacious conduct is completely nullified. The approach may require the court to pass directions either for reversal of the transactions in question by declaring said transactions to be void or passing appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to see that the contumacious conduct on the part of the contemnor does not continue to enure to the advantage of the contemnor or any one claiming under him. It is precisely for these reasons that the direction to have vacant possession delivered to the rightful claimant was passed by this Court in NOORALI BABUL THANEWALA VERSUS K.M.M. SHETTY 1989 (12) TMI 350 - SUPREME COURT - thus Mere passing of an order of punishment as stated by this Court in Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali Anr. would not be enough or sufficient. In a given case, to meet the ends of justice, the concept of purging of the contempt would call for complete disgorging of all the benefits secured as a result of actions which are found by the court to be contumacious. Considering the facts and circumstances on record and the facts that the Contemnor never showed any remorse nor tendered any apology for his conduct, we impose sentence of four months and fine in the sum of Rs.2,000/- upon the Contemnor. The fine shall be deposited in the Registry of this Court within four weeks and upon such deposit, the amount shall be made over to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. In case the amount of fine is not deposited within the time stipulated, the Contemnor shall undergo further sentence of two months. The contempt petitions, thus, stand disposed of.
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Restraint Orders 2. Contempt of Court on Two Counts 3. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court 4. Disbursement of US$ 40 Million 5. Review of Judgment and Order 6. Extradition Proceedings 7. Punishment and Purging of Contempt Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Restraint Orders: The Supreme Court addressed the violation of orders dated 03.09.2013 and 13.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, which restrained the respondents from transferring, alienating, disposing, or creating third-party rights in respect of their properties. The Court found that these orders were clear and unambiguous, covering all properties, whether movable or immovable, under the control of the respondents. The funds amounting to US$ 40 million received by Respondent No.3 were therefore governed by these orders. 2. Contempt of Court on Two Counts: The Court found Respondent No.3 guilty of contempt on two counts: (a) disobeying the Supreme Court's orders by not disclosing full particulars of assets, and (b) violating the High Court of Karnataka's restraint orders. The Court decided to exercise its contempt jurisdiction for both counts, noting that Respondent No.3 had been adequately notified and no prejudice was caused by this assumption of jurisdiction. 3. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court: The Court cited the case of Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat to assert its jurisdiction under Article 129 of the Constitution, emphasizing its role as the protector and guardian of justice throughout the land. The Court concluded that it could take cognizance of the violation of the High Court's orders since it was dealing with the same cause and the violation also pertained to its own orders. 4. Disbursement of US$ 40 Million: The Court detailed the disbursement of US$ 40 million received by Respondent No.3, which was transferred to trusts benefiting his children. This action was found to be in violation of the restraint orders. The Court noted that Respondent No.3's explanation that the funds were beyond his control aggravated the violation, as it reflected an intent to put the funds beyond the reach of the Court's processes. 5. Review of Judgment and Order: Respondent No.3 sought a review of the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2017, which was pending for some time and ultimately rejected on 03.08.2020. The Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to ensure the presence of Respondent No.3. 6. Extradition Proceedings: The Court noted that the extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom had attained finality, with Respondent No.3 exhausting all avenues of appeal. However, a confidential legal issue prevented his extradition. The Court directed that the matter be listed for final hearing and allowed Respondent No.3 or his counsel to advance submissions. 7. Punishment and Purging of Contempt: The Court emphasized the need to impose adequate punishment and pass necessary directions to nullify any advantages secured by the Contemnor. The Court imposed a sentence of four months and a fine of Rs.2,000/- on Respondent No.3, directing the Ministry of Home Affairs to secure his presence for imprisonment. Additionally, the Court declared the transactions involving US$ 40 million void and directed the Contemnor and beneficiaries to deposit the amount with interest. If not deposited, the Recovery Officer was authorized to take appropriate recovery proceedings with the assistance of the Government of India and concerned agencies. Conclusion: The Supreme Court found Respondent No.3 guilty of contempt on two counts, imposed a sentence and fine, and issued directions to ensure the reversal of contumacious transactions and recovery of funds. The Court's decision underscores its jurisdiction and authority to uphold the majesty of law and ensure compliance with its orders.
|
