9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , if any, taking into consideration all relevant facts. In the special leave petition we grant leave. We feel it appropriate to make absolute the order as we had proposed in order dated 27th March, 2000. It is, therefore, ordered accordingly and, thus, the order of the High Court under challenge is modified and it is directed that the entire amount would be withdrawn only against furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial court. The contempt petitions and appeal are disposed of accordingly. - 2308 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2001 - S.P. Bharucha and Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ. [Order per : Y.K. Sabharwal, J.]. - The circumstances under which an order was passed by this Court on 25th August, 2000 directing that notice be issued on contempt petitions, in brief, are these : 2.On 31st December, 1997, Civil Judge (SD), Anand passed a decree in favour of respondent, inter alia, for Rs. 9,33,378.37p. with interest @ 6% from the date of the suit i.e., from 16th March, 1982 and cost of the suit. The said decree is the subject matter of challenge in first Appeal No. 2317/98 filed by the defendants (petitioners in SLP and contempt petition) in the High Court of Gujarat. A civil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ety and 50% with surety. On 3rd April the Civil Judge, on consideration of the affidavit of the Superintendent of Central Excise and the aforesaid application filed by the plaintiff permitted the judgment creditor/plaintiff to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount on furnishing full surety. On 5th April, 2000, order of this Court dated 27th March, 2000 was received by the Trial Court. On 7th April, 2000, an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff before the trial court stating that this Court has passed an order to pay 50% of the amount to him without surety and praying that order may be passed to pay the said 50% amount deposited by the Excise Department without furnishing security. On the said application, after hearing counsel for both the parties, on the same date, namely, 7th April, 2000, an order was passed permitting withdrawal of 50% amount without furnishing surety. The order reads as follows: "Plaintiff and his advocate are present. Heard. The defendant and his advocate the Government Pleader are present. Heard. An officer of respondent produces a copy of the order of the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 4327/2000. Considering the same, till further order the plaint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of order dated 14th June, 2000 security for 50% amount which had been withdrawn had been furnished or not, disposed of the application with the direction to the plaintiff to deposit in the court of Civil Judge (SD), Anand 50% of the amount withdrawn by him within a period of two weeks. 9.On 26th July, Contempt Petition 199 of 2000 was filed in this Court, inter alia, stating that despite the order dated 27th March, 2000 having been brought to the notice of the court, the learned judge by order dated 7th April, 2000 permitted the respondent to withdraw 50% of the amount without security and thereby the respondent had committed contempt. As stated earlier, notice on the contempt petitions was issued on 25th August, 2000. That order reads: "The trial court had permitted the respondent to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited by the petitioners without furnishing security and the respondent states in his counter that he was not aware of the order that we had passed when he did withdraw that amount. The petitioners then moved the High Court for a direction to the respondent to redeposit the amount so withdrawn, and, on 14th June, 2000, the High Court directed the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pliance of the order dated 27th March, 2000 passed by this Court or order dated 14th June, 2000 passed by the High Court of Gujarat. The affidavit goes on to say that the deponent as well as Kanubhai are not well versed in English and depend entirely on the professional advice received from time to time and that whatever action they have taken were taken only on the basis of such advice. 13.In the affidavit dated 10th August, filed in the SLP, Navinbhai stated that on 7th April, 2000 "the deponent/respondents were not aware of the order dated 27th March, 2000 made by this Hon'ble Court". Now, when notice of contempt is issued, he states that this statement is not correct and has been erroneously made. He tries to explain that what he really meant by that statement was that he was not aware of the exact contents of the order till 14th April, 2000 though he did become aware of the substance of the order dated 27th March, 2000 as had been explained to him by his counsel. Regarding the order of the High Court dated 14th June, 2000, the explanation offered is that on receipt of the said order, he again approached his advocate and upon his advice obtained a solvency certificate from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent conducted himself in the High Court and before this Court. Before the High Court he took shelter under order of the Civil Judge dated 7th April, 2000 fully knowing that it was contrary to the order dated 27th March, 2000 passed by this Court. Before this Court, as already stated, first he filed affidavit stating that he was not aware of the order dated 27th March, 2000 passed by this Court and later he tried to explain by stating that what he meant was that he was not aware of the exact contents of the order but was aware of the substance of the order. The explanation is entirely misconceived. The admitted filing of a false affidavit which is now sought to be explained constitutes contempt by itself. It is evident that the deponent has no regard whatsoever for truth. He has taken different stands at different times to suit his convenience. Having regard to the fact that the respondent is said to be living abroad since 1997, we do not want to punish him for the actions of his attorney, to whom notice of contempt has not been issued. Under these circumstances, taking a lenient view, we are inclined to accept the apology. It is ordered accordingly. 16.Reverting now to the conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
