2023 (4) TMI 1186 - HC - Indian Laws

No Willful Contempt Found, Petitioner Criticized, Cost Imposed

Salem Textiles Limited Versus The Deputy General Manager, Industrial Financial Corporation of India Ltd., Continental Chambers, Now at: Mr. Manoj Mittal Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, Industrial Financial Corporation of India Ltd.,

The court found no willful contempt by the respondent and criticized the petitioner's actions. A cost of Rs.25,000 was imposed on the petitioner for ... Alleged disobedience of the orders of this Court - non-party arrayed as contemnor? - Court ordered the third respondent to consider the petitioner's OTS offer/representation 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 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. HELD THAT:- The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, at the time of passing the order by this Court on 21.04.2021 though a direction was given to the Deputy General Manager, Industrial Financial Corporation of India Ltd. at the time of filing the contempt petition, the name of Mr.Manoj Mittal, Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, Industrial Financial Corporation of India Ltd., has been arrayed 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 Manager, Industrial Financial Corporation of India Ltd should have been mentioned in the contempt petition, instead, the Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, Industrial Financial Corporation of India Ltd. has been arrayed as a party unnecessarily without any plausible reason - 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. 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 Ltd., thereby, unnecessarily is troubled as he had to travel all along from New Delhi to appear before this Court pursuant to the statutory notice issued to the respondent. This kind of practice is to be deprecated. In view of the order passed by the respondent where the subsequent applications submitted by the petitioner with improved offer as one time settlement having been considered and rejected by the respondent, absolutely, there is no contempt committed by the respondent company. The Contempt Petition is liable to be closed, accordingly, it is closed with the order imposing cost/compensation of Rs.25,000/- payable by the petitioner to the respondent officer. Issues: Alleged disobedience of court orders, Contempt petition, Compliance with court order, Impleading higher officials in contempt petitionIn this case, a contempt petition was filed alleging the disobedience of court orders dated 21.04.2021 in a writ petition. The court had directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's offer within four weeks. However, the petitioner claimed non-compliance, leading to the contempt petition. The Deputy General Manager of the Industrial Financial Corporation of India Ltd. in Chennai was initially directed, but the Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer from New Delhi was wrongly impleaded as a party. The Managing Director appeared before the court, stating that subsequent representations with improved offers were considered and rejected. The court noted that the Managing Director's inclusion was unnecessary and a misuse of the legal process. It emphasized that higher officials need not be summoned unless necessary. The court found no willful contempt by the respondent and criticized the petitioner's actions. The court imposed a cost of Rs.25,000 on the petitioner for wrongly troubling the Managing Director. As the subsequent applications were considered and rejected, the court concluded that no contempt was committed by the respondent. The contempt petition was closed with the cost payable to the respondent within a month.