9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yed as contemnor as if he has committed the contempt - When this Court specifically asked as to why a non-party has been impleaded as a party as if he has committed contempt, there was no specific answer from the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the higher level officials or officers, who are heading any institution need not be unnecessarily called for these kind of proceedings by summoning them to appear before the Court. By doing the same, their time, energy and also money would get wasted. That apart, the important work to be attended by the higher officials, especially the officials, who are heading any institution would be heavily affected. Therefore, unless, there is a dire need or necessity, such kind of higher officials need not be summoned to the Court. There are two violations on the part of the petitioner in this contempt petition. One is that, when the Managing Director Chief Executive Officer, Industrial Financial Corporation of India Ltd. is not a party in the writ petition and the direction was issued only to the Deputy General Manager, Industrial Financial Corporation of India Ltd, the name of the Deputy General ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition has been filed for the alleged disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 21.04.2021 made in W.P.No.9940 of 2021. 2. In the said writ petition, the following order was passed by this Court: 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on either side, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the third respondent to consider the petitioner's OTS Offer/representation dated 12.01.2021 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the petitioner and the persons interested in this regard and by affording them an opportunity of personal hearing or virtual hearing, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. By the said order, a learned Judge of this Court directed only the third respondent in the writ petition to consider the petitioner's OTS offer/representation dated 12.01.2021 and to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law after issuing notice to the petitioner and the persons interested in this regard and by affording them an opportunity of personal hearing or virtual hearing wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven by this Court in the said order in the writ petition on 21.04.2021 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.01.2021 and pass orders thereon within a time frame, subsequently some more representations have been given more than once by the petitioner on the same plea and every time improved offer has been made by the petitioner as one time settlement. All these representations have collectively been considered and last such representation with latest OTS offer given by the petitioner was considered and rejected as not feasible for compliance by the respondent company. 13. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, the order of this Court has been complied with, but, at the same time since a direction was given only to the Deputy General Manager, Industrial Financial Corporation of India Ltd., unnecessarily, the Managing Director Chief Executive Officer, Industrial Financial Corporation of India Ltd., is arrayed as a party in the contempt petition, therefore, notice has been served on him and in order to respond the same, all along, he has come from New Delhi and appeared before this Court, he contended. 14. I have considered the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. 20. Secondly, once a direction was issued by this Court to consider the representation dated 12.01.2021, the petitioner should have awaited for the orders to be passed by the respondent, thereafter only, he could have persuaded with the contempt petition. However, unmindful of the directions issued by this Court, it seems that the petitioner has given further improved offers to the respondent as one time settlement and that has also been considered and rejected by the respondent company. This is the second mistake committed by the petitioner. 21. Therefore, first of all, this Court feels that there has been no willful contempt on the part of the respondent. Secondly, the array of Managing Director Chief Executive Officer, Industrial Financial Corporation of India Ltd. as contemnor or alleged contemnor is a gross misuse of process of law by the petitioner and merely because the petitioner was able to get an order, that too, in the admission stage even without hearing the respondents, it will not give premium to the petitioner to array the head of the institution and in this case, the Managing Director Chief Executive Officer, Industrial Financial Corporation of India Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
