TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tors of a company by name Parul Polymers Private Limited, which availed loan/credit facilities from the respondent Bank. The petitioners guaranteed the repayment of the loan and had also offered immovable properties as security. (ii) On 24th July, 2014, the loan of the respondents was categorized as a Non Performing Asset due to defaults in repayment. On 18th August, 2014, a notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued for recovery of Rs. 28,82,25,942.24 plus interest. It was followed by a possession notice under section 13(4) in respect of two properties. (iii) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed S.A. No. 367/2014 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi ('DRTIII' for short), under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, the DRTIII declined to grant any interim relief against the physical possession of the aforesaid properties. (iv) The petitioners filed an appeal but could not deposit Rs. 7 crores being 25% of the amount demanded in the notice under Section 13(2). Eventually the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 31.03.2015. (v) However, on 01st April, 2015, the petitioners secured a conditional order of stay from DRTIII, New Delhi in S.A. No. 36....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for three months with a fine of Rs.2000 each. The Division Bench upheld the said order and the petitioners are before us. 5. Before we proceed further we should record certain developments which have taken place after the order of single Judge dated 18.07.2017. They are as follows: (i) The learned Judge himself granted suspension of the sentence of imprisonment till 26.07.2017, to enable the petitioners to move an intracourt appeal; (ii) The petitioners moved an intracourt appeal, which came up before the Division Bench on 25.07.2017. The Division Bench wanted the petitioners to comply at least with a part of their undertaking before the sentence could be suspended. But the petitioners could not. Therefore, the Division Bench did not grant suspension of sentence on 25.07.2017; (iii) The petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition along with an application for exemption from surrendering. But the said application was dismissed by an order in Chamber dated 31.07.2017; (iv) On 03.08.2017, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the miscellaneous application seeking suspension of sentence; (v) Challenging the said order dated 03.08.2017, the petitioners moved a Special....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Aggarwal & Anr.[ (2000) SCC Online Del 710]; (c) K. Saravankumar vs. Sheela & Ors.[ 2008 (3) CTC 669]; and (d) National Agricultural Cor. Marketing vs. Reliance Polycrete Ltd.[ (2009) 163 DLT 441]. 9. In support of his third contention, the learned counsel relies upon the decision of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs. United India Insurance Company Limited [(2010) 12 SCC 770]. In addition, the learned counsel also submitted that in the light of the decision of this Court in Niaz Mohammad vs. State of Haryana[(1994) 6 SCC 332], the disobedience should be wilful and intentional, to tantamount to contempt. 10. In response to the aforesaid, Shri Anuj Jain, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioners had several opportunities to honour their commitments, but they repeatedly adopted dilatory tactics. The learned counsel took us through various orders passed by the High Court and the orders passed in various proceedings before other forums including the DRT and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and sought to impress upon us that the conduct of the petitioners throughout, has been one of deceit and that such persons do not deserve any leniency. Inviting our attent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and her husband undertake to abide by the same. 14. On the basis of the undertaking filed as aforesaid on 08.04.2015, the High Court passed an order in W.P (C) No.3406 of 2015 on the same day, namely, 08.04.2015. Paragraphs 6 to 8 of the said order of the High Court dated 08.04.2015 read as follows: "6. In view of the submission of the parties, it is ordered that the possession of the petitioners over the property in question shall not be disturbed subject to their compliance with the following conditions: (1) Deposit by the petitioners on or before 30.04.2015 - the sum of Rs. 2 crores with the respondent Bank and thereafter deposit of Rs.2.5 crores each on or before 31.05.2015 and 30.06.2015. (2) The second petitioner shall file an affidavit/ undertaking, to comply with the above said arrangement. (3) In the event of default, the respondent Bank shall be at liberty to take recourse to law including the enforcement of further action in follow up order of appointment of the receiver by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM). The order to such effect passed by CMM shall be kept in abeyance to ensure compliance in the meanwhile till 30.6.2015. 7. Petitioners' counsel r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en an order passed on consent terms and an order passed solely on the basis of an undertaking given to court and the distinction between a person playing fraud on the court thereby obstructing the course of justice and a person playing fraud on one of the parties, was brought out by this Court in Babu Ram Gupta vs. Sudhir Bhasin[(1980) 3 SCC 47], in the following words: "...Indeed, if we were to hold that noncompliance of a compromise decree or consent order amounts to contempt of court, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to execution of decrees may not be resorted to at all. In fact, the reason why a breach of clear undertaking given to the court amounts to contempt of court is that the contemner by making a false representation to the court obtains a benefit for himself and if he fails to honour the undertaking, he plays a serious fraud on the court itself and thereby obstructs the course of justice and brings into disrepute the judicial institution. The same cannot, however, be said of a consent order or a compromise decree where the fraud, if any, is practised by the person concerned not on the court but on one of the parties. Thus, the offence committed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondents were in Station and even summons had been received by their daughter. However, a perusal of the file reveals that notices/summons had been received by respondent No. 1 personally and by respondent No. 2's husband by dasti as well as by speed post. Though this Court was inclined to issue warrants against the respondents No. 1 and 2, yet as learned counsel for respondents states that he would ensure that not only the respondents are personally present in Court on the next date of hearing, but the matter is amicably resolved, matter is adjourned to 16th November, 2015." 22. On the next date of hearing, the petitioners raised a defence that they had issued postdated cheques in the hope of receiving amounts due to them from their debtors and that their debtors failed to make payment. The petitioners also named three debtors from whom they were expected to receive money. 23. Doubting the genuineness of the claim made by the petitioners, the learned Judge before whom the Contempt Petition came up, passed an order on 07.12.2015 directing an investigation by Serious Fraud Investigation Office ('SFIO' for short). To the misfortune of the petitioners, SFIO submitted a re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that the petitioners issued postdated cheques purportedly in compliance of the undertaking, but allowed them to be dishonoured. The story cooked up for the dishonor of the cheques having been found to be false, it is not open to the petitioners to raise the contention that there was no wilful disobedience. 29. The 2nd contention based upon the language of Section 13(a) of the Act also does not appeal to us, in the light of what had happened after 08.04.2015. The fact that the order dated 08.04.2015 also indicated certain other consequences to follow, may not take away the contempt jurisdiction of the Court. In appropriate cases where a party had acted bonafide while giving an undertaking, but could not honour the undertaking on account of reasons that are reasonable and genuine, the Court could certainly withhold its stick from being wielded. But in this case there are findings of fact to the effect that the petitioners did not act bonafide. Therefore, the 3rd contention is also unsustainable. 30. The last contention that if the order dated 08.04.2015 is capable of being interpreted and understood in more than one way as to the consequences flowing out of the same, the party un....