2002 (9) TMI 120 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Contempt application regarding non-renewal of Bank guarantee and violation of court orders.

Analysis:
1. The contempt application was based on the failure to renew a Bank guarantee as per court orders dated 12-3-82 and 12-3-87. The respondents were authorized to encash the Bank guarantee if payment was not received by 25-3-1987. The respondents confirmed that the Bank guarantee was indeed encashed.

2. The contemners argued that all sums directed by the court were paid after the contempt application was filed, making it moot. They cited legal precedents to emphasize that contempt proceedings should not be used for monetary recovery. The Supreme Court's stance was highlighted, stating that a contempt application cannot be a means to recover money.

3. The contemners contended confusion regarding the Bank guarantee terms, believing renewal was automatic due to the court order. They expressed willingness to apologize if any violation occurred. On the other hand, it was argued that the Bank guarantee had been renewed previously, making the subsequent non-renewal a deliberate violation.

4. The judge noted a discrepancy in the wording of the court order dated 12-3-1987 and the actions taken, particularly regarding the term "unwillingness." However, with the goods delivered and full payment made, the dispute was considered resolved. Consequently, the judge decided to dispose of the contempt application upon accepting the contemners' unconditional apology, without imposing any penalties but ordering costs of Rs. 10,200 to be paid by the petitioners.

5. The judgment concluded by permanently dispensing with the personal presence of the contemners and closing the contempt matter without further consequences.