TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (10) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the meeting dated April 5, 1997, which is as under : "7. MML also provided a letter No. 021/MML/97 dated April 5, 1997, wherein they admitted that there was a shortfall of Rs. 7.63 crores." The respondents also by an affidavit filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court admitted their liability stating : "15. In this instance also the petitioner-company had on its own given the particulars of the amounts due from it to the complainant company by its letter dated April 5, 1997, wherein it accepted a liability of Rs. 763.22 lakhs and also gave the repayment schedule. Prior to that it gave a list of all the pending customers at Hyderabad and Vijayawada. In fact vehicles have been delivered to meet of these in the said list, and deliveries are still on to the remaining persons. The complainant company had been delivering these vehicles through other dealers as with the advent of this dispute with the petitioner-company it terminated its dealership. 16. It is respectfully submitted that after the petitioner-company gave the said undertaking to pay off the due about Rs. 763.22 lakhs, there has been a change in thinking in the concerned officials of the complainant compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other interim order of the learned arbitrator." The proposed term of reference was also agreed to by the respondents. On the basis of the said representations, this court by an order dated September 6, 2006 referred the subject-matter of the dispute to the arbitration of justice A. M. Ahmadi, a former Chief Justice of this court. The question as to whether the respondents should furnish bank guarantee or not came up for consideration before the learned arbitrator and by an order dated March 25, 2003, a direction was issued upon the respondents to furnish bank guarantee for the sum of Rs. 763.22 lakhs within a period of four weeks from the said date directing : "Since the documents relied upon by the claimant company in support of its claim for Rs. 763.22 lakhs are in dispute, I am not inclined to make an interim award under section 17 of the Act read with Order 12, rule 6, of the CPC However, I am prima facie satisfied that the claimant company has made out a prima facie case for an interim order directing the respondents to furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 763.22 lakhs within a period of four weeks from today. Needless to state that under the Supreme Court o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t by reason of sale of property at Bangalore, a further contempt has been committed. It was urged that the affidavit of respondent No. 1 not only amounted to suppression of facts but also perjury. An award was made on April 10, 2005, as against the company for a sum of Rs. 7.63 crores with interest at the rate of 8 per cent, in favour of the petitioner along with costs and expenses. Before this court, however, a proposal for settlement was made by respondent No. 1 in terms of an affidavit; paragraph 13 whereof reads thus : "13. I say that I pray this hon'ble court to kindly consider my pecuniary circumstances and helpless position to mobilize monies to an extent of Rs. 763.22 lakhs and I pray which inability of mere may not be termed as contempt of this hon'ble court. I once again reiterate and pray this hon'ble court to kindly consider my adverse financial circumstances and kindly accept the landed property as security which the petitioner has accepted and consequently the orders passed by the arbitrator was complied with and thus there is no cause of action to proceed with the present contempt case. Even otherwise I have also established a prima facie case over the title....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against being Writ Petition No. 15920 of 2004. The said writ petition having been dismissed, the appeal of the respondents and the company preferred there against was taken up for hearing along with this matter and by reason of a judgment and order of this date, we are disposing of the same also. The Collector filed a status report, inter alia, noticing : "10. It may be informed to this hon'ble court that on detailed enquiry by the revenue officials it is learnt that one Sri R. Praveen Kumar, S/o R. Vijay Kumar, claiming to be GPA holder (unregistered) of M/s. Mahalakshmi Motors Ltd., is reportedly running Mahalaxmi Motors workshop on the suit schedule land but on ground a company under the name and style of M/s. Hyundai Lakshmi is being run, involving business of buying, selling and servicing of vehicles. Further, there are two prominent display boards at the entrance showing as 'Hyundai Lakshmi'. The copy of the GPA furnished by Sri Praveen Kumar, is not registered and has no legal authenticity. This office has reason to believe that a third party is in illegal possession of the land and the relationship between M/s. Mahalaxmi Motors and present occupant is not known. In t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d unwarrantly traced earlier rejection of the regularization of proposals by the Government by cryptic and non-speaking order and consequent filing of Writ Petition No. 15 of 2000 by the respondent when the matter was remitted back to the Government to pass appropriate orders taking into account the recommendations of the district Collector and the Commissioner of Land Revenue, dated October 22, 1997 and September 30, 1997, which facts are already in the record of this hon'ble court. While so doing, the district Collector, Hyderabad, made a false report that a report was submitted to the Government that the lands are required for public purposes like establishment of hospitals, schools, play grounds, etc., referring to his report dated June 17, 2003, and his report is not based on the recommendations based by him and the Commissioner of Land Revenue referred to above which is definitely an afterthought and to prejudice the mind of this honourable court. Further, it is not a relevant issue at this juncture which he never pleaded before any of the courts below. 7. The respondent submits that the Collector, Hyderabad, deliberately, wantonly and maliciously sent a misleading report ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed by respondent No. 2 wherein it was stated that he was not a signatory to the original dealership agreement and was not involved in any of the day-to-day affairs of Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. Our attention was also drawn to a counter-affidavit dated February 16, 2004, and further affidavits dated August 1, 2004, August 5, 2005, and October 4, 2005, wherein, as noticed hereinbefore, respondent No. 1 had tendered unconditional apology for his inability to raise the resources and furnish a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 763.22 lakhs. Respondent No. 2 had also stated that he was forced to sell his personal flat at Bangalore, to meet his debts and obligations and he was ready and willing to relinquish all the rights with respect to the land in Secunderabad. It was furthermore submitted that as the learned arbitrator has passed an award only against the company, the interlocutory order passed by this court having merged with the final award, no contempt of this court has been committed. The fact of the matter, as noticed hereinbefore, clearly goes to show that the alleged contemnors not only prevaricated their stand at different stages in different proceedings, they intended ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontempt of this court. In Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya [2004] 1 SCC 360 [[2004] 118 Comp. Cas. 241 (SC)], even in relation to a consent order, this court held : "10. A legal plea taken by a party that a decree passed by a court (including Supreme Court) is without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity, will not normally amount to a contemptuous statement. However, the written submission made by the respondents before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, wherein they said that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree dated July 28, 1999, and the decree had no validity and is a nullity, has to be seen in the factual background of the case. It may be noted that the decree had been passed on the basis of consent terms. It is not the case of the respondents that any fraud was played upon them by any party when they entered into a settlement and signed the minutes of the decree. It appears that the respondents from the very inception had no intention of paying the amount, but they agreed for a settlement and consent terms only for the purpose of gaining time whereunder instalments were fixed. They adopted the same procedure in the suit instituted by Oman Internatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the court is to be exercised for maintenance of the courts dignity and majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemnor and the court. . ." This court in R.N. Dey [2000] 4 SCC 400, has categorically held that the contempt is a matter between the court and the contemnor. Unlike R.N. Dey [2000] 4 SCC 400, herein the respondents are not disputing their liability to pay the awarded amount. Therein no undertaking had been given. In Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang [2006] 11 SCC 114, whereupon reliance has been placed by Mr. Divan, the question revolved round the alleged violation of certain clauses of the consent terms. In that case the consent order did not contain an undertaking. It, on that premise, opined (page 125) : "24. All decrees and orders are executable under the Code of Civil Procedure. Consent decrees or orders are of course also executable. But merely because an order or ....