9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the refund. No doubt, had the refund and subsequent appropriation been of any amount other than the compensation, there would not have been any contempt at all. Unfortunately, the Division Bench, in the impugned order, failed to recapitulate the background of the order dated 23.02.2011 and its own earlier orders with regard to the refusal for withdrawal by the respondents of the compensation deposited in court. Even if there be pressing needs, there could not have been any utilisation of the compensation amount without leave of the court. Division Bench should not have interfered with the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge. However, taking note of the fact, an amount of ₹ 2,23,00,000/- has been kept in fixed deposit towards lien for issuance of bank guarantee, we make it clear that the respondents shall not operate the bank accounts of the company after 03.04.2017 without securing an amount of ₹ 8,32,60,331/-. We also make it clear that without leave of the High Court, the fixed deposit of ₹ 2,23,00,000/- with the Axis Bank shall not be withdrawn. However, it would be open to the respondents to apply for appropriate clarification or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the order dated 23.02.2011, and therefore, issued Rule to the respondents, returnable in six weeks, vide order dated 26.06.2015. There was also a direction that the respondents shall not operate the bank accounts of the company without securing the afore-mentioned amount of ₹ 10,55,60,331/-. 4. Aggrieved, the respondents took up the matter in appeal before the Division Bench leading to the impugned order. 5. The Division Bench, in the impugned order, took the view that the learned Single Judge should not have passed an order affecting the operation of bank accounts, and therefore, to that extent, the order of the learned Single Judge was vacated. And thus aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court. 6. It may specifically be noted that the Division Bench has not interfered with the Rule issued to the respondents in the proceedings initiated under The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for the alleged violation of the order dated 23.02.2011. The Division Bench only vacated the order regarding operation of the bank accounts of the company without securing the amount of rupees ten crores and odd. To quote from the impugned order: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same in fixed deposit subject to further order of Court. Mr. Subhranshu Ganguly, learned Advocate representing Yashdeep Trexim Pvt. Ltd. supported the submission of Mr. S.N. Mitra. Ms. Manju Agarwal, learned Advocate, appearing for some of the creditors of the company in liquidation also supported the contention of Mr. S.N. Mitra. Mr. D.K. Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the Official Liquidator submitted that pursuant to earlier orders passed by the Apex Court it is, only proper that the money should be deposited with the Registrar, Original Side . Mr. Niloy Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for Krishna Kumar Kapadia, who, according to him, holds controlling block of shares in the company submitted that the submission of Mr. S.N. Mitra should be accepted. Considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties I am of the opinion that the submission made on behalf of the Official Liquidator is also in conformity with the submission made by Mr. S.N. Mitra which has largest support of the parties appearing before me. In that view of the matter, National Highway Authority of India is restrained from making any payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.29330 of 2014 (@ SLP CC No.16278/2014). The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.10.2014 by passing the following order. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to move the Company Judge to dispose of the pending matters as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, in view of the fair submission made by the learned senior counsel, we dismiss this special leave petition as withdrawn with a request to the Company Judge to dispose of the pending matters as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from today. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Company Judge before whom all applications are pending should dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months from today. (Emphasis supplied) 12. Thus, it may be noted that this Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, which in turn refused the prayer for withdrawal of the deposit lying with the Court. 13. Despite the above background, the respondents received chequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on account of refund which has its origin in the amount paid by the National Highway Authority was in the teeth of the order dated 23rd February, 2011. I am, therefore, prima facie of the opinion that there has been a deliberate violation of the order passed by this court. It appears from the return appearing at page 101 that a sum of ₹ 34,31,807/- was payable on account of tax by the company. After deducting the aforesaid sum from the amount of ₹ 10,55,60,331/-, the balance sum of ₹ 10,21,28,520/- was claimed by way of refund. The liability on account of income tax is payable by the present management from their own resource and for that any part of the money received from the National Highway Authority could not be used. Therefore, the alleged contemnors, managing the affairs of the company, in liquidation, appear to have appropriated the aforesaid sum of ₹ 10,55,60,331/- which was deposited by way of tax deducted at source with the Income Tax Department by the National Highway Authority. For the aforesaid reasons, issue Rule against the alleged contemnor Nos. 1 to 6. Returnable six weeks hence. Since the company, in liquidation, throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10,55,60,331/-. 17. Though Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to the judgment of this Court in Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and others v. M. George Ravishekaran and others ( 2014) 3 SCC 373), and contended that the courts must not travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted, in the background which we have explained above, we find it difficult to appreciate the submission. This Court, in the judgment referred to above, in paragraph-19, has clarified that the directions which are explicit in the judgment or are plainly self-evident can be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of the same. Prima facie, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has taken note only of the plainly self-evident facts while issuing the Rule and order regarding securing the amounts which the respondents received by way of refund from the Income-Tax Department and utilized. 18. It may be seen that the order dated 23.02.2011 regarding the deposit in court was passed to secure the entire com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing the refund received. The refund they received is actually the compensation in respect of the land acquired from the company and it is that amount which the court wanted to protect by its order dated 23.02.2011. Hence, prima facie, we are of the view that the appropriation made by the respondents of the refund amount they received from the Income-Tax Department was in violation of the order dated 23.02.2011. It appears, for that reason only, even the Division Bench declined to disturb the Rule in the contempt proceedings issued against respondents. However, the Division Bench is wholly wrong in entering a finding that there is no violation of the order dated 23.02.2011 in utilising the refund. No doubt, had the refund and subsequent appropriation been of any amount other than the compensation, there would not have been any contempt at all. 21. Unfortunately, the Division Bench, in the impugned order, failed to recapitulate the background of the order dated 23.02.2011 and its own earlier orders with regard to the refusal for withdrawal by the respondents of the compensation deposited in court. Even if there be pressing needs, there could not have been any utilisation of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. and another (1996) 4 SCC 622), and going a step further, the Court has a duty to issue appropriate directions for remedying or rectifying the things done in violation of the orders. In that regard, the Court may even take restitutive measures at any stage of the proceedings. 25. In the background as above of the case, the Division Bench should not have interfered with the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge. However, taking note of the fact, an amount of ₹ 2,23,00,000/- has been kept in fixed deposit towards lien for issuance of bank guarantee, we make it clear that the respondents shall not operate the bank accounts of the company after 03.04.2017 without securing an amount of ₹ 8,32,60,331/-. We also make it clear that without leave of the High Court, the fixed deposit of ₹ 2,23,00,000/- with the Axis Bank shall not be withdrawn. However, it would be open to the respondents to apply for appropriate clarification or modification of the order dated 26.06.2015, after making the deposit as above and it will be open to the learned Single Judge to pass the appropriate orders on merits of the application. 26. We make it clear that any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
