9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (9) TMI 802 - SC - Indian LawsInitiation of contempt proceedings for violation of court orders - Non Compliance with the terms of the scheme for Ashok Paper Mills - HELD THAT - Under the Scheme which was formulated on 28.6.1996 and had been approved by this Court by the order dated 8.7.1996, NCFL had to pay a fixed Consideration of ₹ 6 crores over a period of four years in 16 quarterly installments of ₹ 37.5 lakhs each. The NCFL has no doubt defaulted in payment of the aforesaid amount as it has paid only two installments of ₹ 37.5 lakhs each. The IDBI has disbursed a term loan of ₹ 15 crores towards Phase I of the revival scheme. The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India in cooperation with Department of Banking was instrumental in obtaining the sanction for additional term loan of ₹ 11 crores from IDBI and a working capital of ₹ 9.25 crores from United Bank of India. Therefore, so far as the IDBI and the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India are concerned, they have complied with the directions issued by this Court and have also taken all other steps which they were required to take for the revival of the unit. According to the affidavit filed by Shri Dharam Godha, NCFL has invested ₹ 18 crores towards promoter's contribution which was much more than the amount contemplated in Phase I of the Scheme. It is also averred therein that for the loan of ₹ 15 crores given by IDBI, security of properties situate in Mumbai worth ₹ 10 crores, other than that of the mill, had been furnished by NCFL. Though the entire amount of consideration has not been paid by the NCFL but they claim to have made substantial investment for running of the unit. Section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act defines 'civil contempt' and it means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of undertaking given to a Court. 'Wilful' means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to constitute contempt the order of the Court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extra ordinary effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. This has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The facts mentioned above show that none of the respondents to the petition can be held to be directly responsible if the Scheme which had been formulated by Government of India on 28.6.1996 and had been approved by this Court by the order dated 8.7.1996 could not be implemented in letter and spirit as many factors have contributed to the same. The reasons given for non inclusion of Shri Umadhar Prasad Singh in signing of the agreement appear to be quite plausible. NCFL has undoubtedly not discharged its liability of making payment of its entire liability of ₹ 6 crores. However it has come out with a case that some additional expenditure has been incurred in running the unit. It is not possible to get the complete financial picture only on the basis of the affidavits filed in the present petition. On the material on record, therefore, it is not possible to hold that the charge of having committed contempt of Court on account of alleged non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court on 8.7.1996, 1.5.1997 and 31.7.2000 has been established against any one of the respondents. The petition is accordingly dismissed and the notices issued to the respondents are discharged. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is only for the limited purpose of deciding the present contempt petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the rights and claims of the parties. The order will also not come in the way of any party in seeking to recover its dues or to establish any kind of right or taking any other action. G.P. Mathur, J. - For the reasons given in Contempt Petition No. 210 of 2001 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 174 of 1991, the present petition is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of contempt proceedings for violation of court orders. 2. Compliance with the revival scheme for Ashok Paper Mills. 3. Payment obligations and financial contributions by NCFL. 4. Role and actions of Government of Bihar and Government of India. 5. Participation and conduct of Ashok Paper Kamgar Union. Summary: 1. Initiation of Contempt Proceedings: The petition u/s Article 129 of the Constitution was filed by M/s Ashok Paper Kamgar Union for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for violation of orders dated 8.7.1996, 1.5.1997, and 31.7.2000 in Writ Petition No. 174 of 1991. The respondents included officials from Nouveau Capital & Finance Ltd. (NCFL), Ministry of Industry, Government of India, and Government of Bihar. 2. Compliance with Revival Scheme: Ashok Paper Mills, a joint sector company, became sick in 1988 and was referred to BIFR. A scheme for revival was formulated on 28.6.1996, accepted by the court on 8.7.1996, which involved NCFL taking over the unit with specific terms and conditions. The scheme included financial contributions, absorption of the workforce, and phased rehabilitation. 3. Payment Obligations and Financial Contributions by NCFL: NCFL was required to pay a fixed consideration of Rs. 6 crores in 16 quarterly installments but defaulted, paying only two installments. NCFL claimed to have invested Rs. 18 crores towards the promoter's contribution. IDBI disbursed a term loan of Rs. 15 crores towards Phase I of the revival scheme, and additional loans were sanctioned. 4. Role and Actions of Government of Bihar and Government of India: The Government of Bihar and Government of India were involved in facilitating the revival scheme. However, issues such as non-supply of power and embargo on removing machinery for repairs hindered the unit's functioning. The Government of Bihar's inability to provide grid power and subsequent guarantee for DG sets were noted. 5. Participation and Conduct of Ashok Paper Kamgar Union: The petitioner union's non-cooperation in signing the tripartite agreement was highlighted. The Labour Commissioner reported the union's hindrance in reaching a settlement. Consequently, an agreement was signed with Ashok Paper Mill Mazdoor Panchayat, a recognized union, which was upheld by the court. Conclusion: The court concluded that the respondents did not commit willful disobedience of the orders dated 8.7.1996, 1.5.1997, and 31.7.2000. The reasons for non-compliance were attributed to various factors, including old machinery, financial constraints, and external dependencies. The petition was dismissed, and the notices issued to the respondents were discharged. The observations made were limited to the contempt petition and did not affect the rights and claims of the parties in other proceedings.
|
