9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the settlement, has the effect of a decree of the Court. As a decree, the terms of the settlement are enforceable and executable in accordance with the process known to law. A decree for the payment of money is capable of being executed in the manner indicated by the provisions contained in Order XXI of CPC. Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXI provide for the mode of paying money under a decree and for the payment out of Court to a decree holder. Consequently, where a settlement agreement which has been arrived at between the parties is embodied in a final order or decree of the Court, the remedy of a party which is aggrieved by the non-payment of sums due and payable under it is to enforce and execute the decree in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the contempt petition. The contempt petition was not maintainable - appeal allowed. - Special Appeal No. - 181 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 13-5-2015 - Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, And Shri Narayan Shukla, JJ. Counsel for Appellants :- Sudeep Seth Counsel for Respondents :- Manish Kumar,Vivek Raghuvanshi Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ This special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yees were to be entitled to the payment of their dues up to 31 December 2012. The Division Bench recorded that all the settlement agreements shall form part of the judgment. Keeping in view the amicable settlement between the parties, the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, expressing a hope and expectation that parties would cooperate in the implementation of the settlement agreement and would not create any disturbance in the functioning of the company and the sugar mill. The settlement agreements were to be binding on the signatories. The appeal was, accordingly, disposed of. The order of the Division Bench was confirmed by the dismissal of a special leave petition filed by the appellants, on 7 May 2014 by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, on 12 December 2013, the BIFR passed an order declaring the company as a sick industrial company under Section 3 (1) (o) of SICA and appointed Punjab National Bank as the Operating Agency under Section 17 (3). The following order was passed by the BIFR: (i) The company shall prepare a fully tied up draft rehabilitation scheme (DRS) within four weeks and submit the same to OA, with a copy to the Board. (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actics; and that all elements which constitute a willful disobedience of the orders of the Court are present. The appellants are in appeal against the rejection of their objection to the maintainability of the contempt petition. The maintainability of the appeal was challenged on the ground that a special appeal will not lie against an order of the learned Single Judge in the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction and that only an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 19716 would be maintainable. While considering the merits of the objection to the maintainability of the appeal, it must be noted that under Section 19 (1), an appeal lies as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Under sub-section (2) of Section 19, the appellate court is empowered to direct that the execution of the punishment or the order appealed against be suspended; that the appellant, if he is in confinement, be released on bail; and that the appeal be heard, though the appellant has not purged his contempt. In the present case, no appeal would be maintainable under Section 19 (1) (a) for the simple reason that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Single Judge declining permission to withdraw a company petition for winding up and allowing a prayer for substitution of a petitioning creditor, an appeal was filed before the Division Bench. During the pendency of the appeal, parties were referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. A settlement agreement was arrived at on 1 June 2012 under which the dues of the workmen and other creditors were quantified which the management agreed to pay. The Division Bench, by its judgment dated 4 January 2013 disposed of the company appeal in terms of the amicable settlement which was arrived at before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The agreement which was arrived at in the course of mediation was a settlement by which the dispute was compromised. When the Division Bench disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise, the mediated settlement received the imprimatur of the Court. Section 634 of the Companies Act provides that any order made by a Court under the Act may be enforced in the same manner as a decree made by the Court in a suit pending therein. In a regular civil suit, a decree can be passed in terms of a compromise which is arrived at, under Order XXIII Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uce their evidence and can examine and cross-examine the witnesses as opposed to the proceedings in contempt which are summary in nature. Application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is not maintainable once the suit stood decreed. Law does not permit to skip the remedies available under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC and resort to the contempt proceedings for the reason that the court has to exercise its discretion under the Act 1971 when an effective and alternative remedy is not available to the person concerned. Thus, when the matter relates to the infringement of a decree or decretal order embodies rights, as between the parties, it is not expedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction, in essence, as a mode of executing the decree or merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character. (emphasis supplied) The same view was expressed in a judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Jitesh Trading Co Vs Gita Fabrics P Ltd12, where it was held that a breach of consent terms which were arrived at in the course of a company petition, could only be remedied by seeking enforcement of the order of the Court under Section 634 of the Companies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
